Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Voluntary Sector

Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on the money allocated in the spending review 2002 for the voluntary sector.

Gordon Brown: The Home Secretary and I plan to publish a paper on future policies for the voluntary sector. In addition to matching £400 million in gift aid with money for the active community unit and £125 million for the futurebuilders fund, the spending review gave priority to, and targeted extra resources on, voluntary sector participation in sure start, children's services, IT centres, community economic regeneration and the new deal. We also plan to introduce proposals to encourage gap year voluntary service by young people.

Andrew Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about sure start, which has been amazingly successful in my constituency, affecting 788 families. It is an example of the charitable and voluntary sectors and the Government working together. I urge him to do three things in respect of that superb project: to provide more investment; to join me in urging all parties to support it; and to consider allowing greater local flexibility, so that boundaries, which are rigid at the moment, could be bent a little to provide help to families who need it but who just happen to live across a boundary.

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend has a sure start scheme in his constituency that has had capital funding and helped 770 children in the area. We are very pleased that as a result of the engagement of the voluntary sector in every sure start project—it now runs 10 per cent. of the projects as the lead manager—we have managed to increase sure start child care and early-years budgets from £973 million last year to £1.5 billion by 2005–6. We are determined to improve provision in every area of the country where sure start projects are needed. The best way forward is to engage the voluntary sector, but that would not be possible if there were a 20 per cent. cut in public spending.

John Bercow: Given that the Government promised an extra £50 million for specialist palliative care, including additional support for voluntary sector hospices, and that that commitment was underlined by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), as recently as 21 October last year, how does the Chancellor explain the fact, which infuriates the hard-working hospice movement, that it has so far received only 8 per cent. of the money first promised two and a half years ago?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows that the funding has been made available from the Treasury. Arrangements with individual hospices must be addressed locally, based on the view of local palliative care services. We are determined to put extra money into the hospice movement to help it, but I repeat that that would not be possible if the Flight plan for a 20 per cent. cut in public services were introduced.

David Taylor: North-west Leicestershire is fortunate in having a flourishing and independent voluntary sector. What plans does the Chancellor have to encourage greater corporate support for the voluntary sector and, in particular, for individual businesses to be able to give financial backing to those in their local community?

Gordon Brown: The Chief Secretary has been leading the way from the Treasury in trying to engage the corporate sector in several new initiatives that would increase the amount of money available for, and the numbers of people engaged in, voluntary, community and charitable work. It would be welcomed on both sides of the House if we could increase the amount of corporate giving and corporate engagement in some of our voluntary and community projects. I look forward to publishing with the Home Secretary proposals on how we can move the process forward in the next few years. I remind my hon. Friend that gift aid is available for companies as well as for individuals, that it is the most generous system of tax relief for charities that has been made available in this country, and that it surpasses what is available in most other countries. I hope that the £400 million that we are now devoting to gift aid will increase over the next few years, from increases in both corporate and individual giving. I hope that we will have all-party support for that.

Stephen O'Brien: Given the pressure that the Chancellor has put on the funds of the voluntary sector, with the decline in charities' income—such as that experienced by hospices—from his removal of the advance corporation tax dividend credit and the imminent imposition of his jobs tax through the increase in the national insurance levy, can he find the resources to refund the £500 million per year of irrecoverable VAT to charities? If he can, we will back him every step of the way and fully co-operate on the issue during the passage of the forthcoming Finance Bill.

Gordon Brown: I find it amazing that the Conservative party, which raised VAT and then put it on fuel, is now claiming that these measures have harmed charities. On help for charities, we have the best regime for individual and corporate giving, with tax reliefs higher than they ever were under the Conservatives, and an active community unit budget that has been increased massively. At the same time, the futurebuilders programme, led by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, is putting £125 million extra into charities. None of the problems of charities could be solved if the Flight plan cut 20 per cent. from their expenditure.

International Debt Relief

Parmjit Dhanda: What plans he has to extend the scope of international debt relief.

Gordon Brown: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question together with Questions 14 and 16.
	I am pleased to announce that, following the G7 meeting in Paris last weekend, all G7 members have agreed to examined how, in the short term, we can do more to help countries where, because of the decline in commodity prices and for other reasons, they have yet to achieve a sustainable exit from debt from our debt relief programmes. We shall also examine how, in the longer run, we can together provide a new international finance facility, so that instead of poor countries having to pay higher debt interest payments, they will have additional resources to invest in tackling illiteracy and disease.
	I have been grateful for all-party support for these initiatives. We hope to make further progress on all these matters at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in April this year.

Parmjit Dhanda: On behalf of trade justice campaigners in Gloucester and around the country, may I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on providing 100 per cent. debt relief to 26 developing countries? At the same time, however, does he share my concerns about the activities of private companies, of which those of Nestlé in Ethiopia offer one example? Such companies are pursuing litigation against heavily indebted poor countries, which often hampers our efforts to provide debt relief.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work that he does in his constituency to promote the debt relief campaign and the pursuit of the millennium development goals.
	I gather that Nestlé is now settling the issue with Ethiopia. I met the Prime Minister of Ethiopia only two days ago, and I promised him, on the issue of debt relief, that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development would try to find a means at the international meetings in April to do more to help his country with the debt relief programme that he wants to carry out. In the longer term, the issue is less what we do on debt relief than how much more resources, tied to reform, we can put into education and health programmes for countries such as Ethiopia and others. That is why the international finance facility, a British initiative gaining support among other countries, is so important. It is the long-term means by which we can guarantee that, instead of the poorest countries having to rely on debt relief, they will receive additional resources.

Mr. Speaker: I call Phyllis Starkey.

Hon. Members: Where is she?

Mr. Speaker: Not here. I call Helen Jackson.

Hon. Members: Where is she?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Chancellor investigate whether Phyllis Starkey and Helen Jackson were notified? I call Sir Patrick Cormack.

John Bercow: He is always here.

Patrick Cormack: May I add my thanks and congratulations to the Chancellor? What steps are being taken to ensure that corrupt and tyrannical regimes are not the beneficiaries of what he is doing?

Gordon Brown: The whole House appreciates the hon. Gentleman's work in respect of Commonwealth countries. If we are to provide additional help for health, education and anti-poverty programmes, we must have a guarantee that the money will go not to corrupt elites, wasteful military expenditure and prestige projects by bureaucracies, but to the people. That is why the IMF's poverty reduction strategy programmes are so important, and why the initiatives that we have taken on transparency for fiscal and monetary policies in the highly indebted countries are important. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that we are offering help to those countries to build up their capacity to run transparent financial policies, and thereby ensuring that everything possible is done to prevent the corruption to which he referred.

John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor recall the UN development programme head who stated that the reason for 11 September was not Islam but the failure of Governments? Will my right hon. Friend continue to articulate the view that the world's long-term stability lies in easing the deep resentments in many developing countries? Will he work with the trade justice campaign and other campaigns to ensure that trade barriers are reduced, that the common agricultural policy is reformed, and that the World Trade Organisation fulfils its remit in respect of people in developing countries?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and he is absolutely right: a world that is divided between people who have plenty and those who are denied basic necessities can be neither just nor stable. That is why it is so important that we move forward to build a better relationship between developed and developing countries. As well as the actions that I have set out—on corruption and on providing extra aid resources—that better relationship includes the opening up of trade. Therefore, I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. One of the biggest boosts to tackling poverty in the poorest countries will be progress at the WTO talks in Mexico in September.

National Insurance

James Gray: What estimate he has made of the effect on employment of the national insurance rises due in April.

Dawn Primarolo: In line with long-established practice, the Government do not forecast employment. However, estimates by independent analysts show that the impact on employment from an increase in national insurance contributions is likely to be close to nil.

James Gray: Perhaps it is just as well that the Paymaster General does not predict the effects on employment. May I remind her of the words that the Government used in a press release that tried to justify the climate change levy after the 2000 Budget? They said:
	"The lower National Insurance Contributions will act to promote employment opportunities".
	Does she accept that the opposite also applies and that higher national insurance contributions will act to the detriment of employment opportunities, so that this is in a very real sense a tax on jobs?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the reform of national insurance for the low paid removes the barrier that existed for so many people in taking jobs and being employed in the economy. He will remember that he put out a press release calling for more funds to be made available to the national health service. The national insurance rise that provides for that money is supported by people such as Anthony Goldstone, who says that business can benefit from it. If we are to have a first-class health service, we must pay for it. The national insurance rise is the best way to do so and will save money for business, which is currently losing about £11 billion a year in sickness days. It will ensure a healthier work force as well as a more just nation.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when we introduced the national minimum wage the comments made by Conservative Members were very similar to those that we are hearing this morning about the increases in national insurance contributions? I remind my right hon. Friend that we were told that unemployment would go up by hundreds of thousands and that it would be the end of civilisation as we knew it. I do not think that any Conservative Member would criticise the national minimum wage today.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) forecast repeatedly over a number of years that the introduction of the national minimum wage would lose 2 million jobs. In fact, since the election of this Government, there have been more than 1.5 million new jobs in the economy, unemployment is at its lowest rate and employment is at its highest rate. When we compare that with the record of the previous Government—2 million jobs lost, 1 million of which were in manufacturing, and 1.4 million disappearing from the economy—we can see the effect of their proposal for a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure. That would have a real impact on employment, not the national insurance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the Minister that her answers are getting overlong and bordering on matters that are outside her responsibilities?

Michael Spicer: Does the Paymaster General accept that, typically, low-taxed economies are dynamic and high-taxed economies are static?

Dawn Primarolo: To be brief, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he supports this Government, who, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have created one of the lowest tax environments in the world, certainly lower than any of our European competitors, and the soundest economy of our European partners. What is more, we are paying for a national health service that this nation wants to be the best health service in the world, so that his constituents will get the treatment that they need.

Anne Begg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the money raised by the national insurance rises will be invested in the national health service and that the largest proportion of money will go towards employing extra staff, extra nurses and extra doctors, thereby helping employment?

Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that the rises in national insurance have led to approximately £40 billion more for the national health service. They have meant more nurses, more doctors and more patients being treated, including Conservative Members' constituents, who would not be treated if the Conservative party cut public expenditure by 20 per cent. under the Flight plan.

Peter Tapsell: Why is the Chancellor tightening his fiscal stance by increasing national insurance contributions when the growth rate is declining? Does he expect the Bank of England to accommodate his spending plans through further reductions in interest rates? What is the point of pursuing conflicting fiscal and monetary policies?

Dawn Primarolo: We are increasing public expenditure at a time when it is vital to do that; the Conservative party wants to cut it.

George Stevenson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the full support of Labour Members for the increases that will take place in April to ensure that we have a properly funded national health service that is financed through taxation? I remind her that, in my constituency, expenditure on the health service has more than doubled in the past five years. We will get a new hospital, and the primary care trust's budget has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms. The new hospital will stimulate employment in the constituency—the Opposition often forget that point.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. There are 20,000 more nurses, 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 new GPs and 60 new hospitals. Those developments create jobs and services in our constituencies. The Conservative party would cut all that through the Flight plan.

Michael Howard: May I invite the Paymaster General to return to the real world for a moment? Will she confirm that the tax on jobs and pay, which comes into force 38 days from today, will cost a typical family £440 a year? Will she also confirm that, at the same time, massive council tax increases—even greater than the huge rises forecast in the pre-Budget report—will take effect? Is it any wonder that the Health Secretary recently said that there would be
	"one hell of a lather about taxes rising",
	and that many people would conclude that the Government's approach "actually . . . isn't working"? Does the Paymaster General agree with the Health Secretary's comments?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should return to the real world in his constituency, where he calls for more expenditure on health. He needs to tell hon. Members where he would find the extra money. He should explain to the House and his constituents why he supports the Flight plan, which would cut public expenditure by 20 per cent.

Michael Howard: The Paymaster General and the Chancellor can dissemble all they like about our policies, but we will tell the truth about theirs. Has the Paymaster General forgotten the Labour party's 1997 election manifesto? It stated:
	"The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action".
	The sad truth is that the Government's failure to reform public services has left the Chancellor with no option but to levy increasingly higher taxes. Are not the Government locked in a vicious cycle of ever higher taxes and ever failing public services?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has selective amnesia. He does not remember that he has called for more GPs in his constituency. He says one thing to his constituents about wanting more money and another in the House, where he proposes the Flight plan and 20 per cent. cuts. The Government's record on employment, job creation and funding the NHS and public services forms such a contrast to the economic policies of the Government of whom he was a member. They had the highest unemployment, lost the most jobs and had the highest interest rates.

Travel Insurance

Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his forthcoming report on travel insurance regulation.

Ruth Kelly: I presume that my hon. Friend is asking about the recent consultation on whether travel insurance sold as part of a package with a holiday should be regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The Government are currently analysing the responses to the consultation on "Regulating Insurance Mediation". The consultation closed on 31 January. I will make an announcement on the outcomes of that consultation, including whether or not travel insurance sold with a holiday should be included in the scope of FSA regulation, in the second quarter of the year.

Tony Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that in 2001 the financial ombudsman said that one in eight of all insurance complaints related to travel insurance, and that last year complaints about travel insurance increased by 14 per cent., does my hon. Friend agree that we need to regulate to protect the consumer buying travel insurance, wherever it is bought from?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There has been an intense debate on this subject with those respondents who have come back to the consultation with diametrically opposite views. Many bodies are in favour of FSA regulation; many are against. We have to strike the right balance between, for example, the perceived benefits of creating a level playing field for firms selling the same product and the evidence that my hon. Friend puts before the House today against the perceived regulatory costs placed on travel agents, for whom travel insurance forms a very small part of turnover. I shall certainly take into account my hon. Friend's evidence when making the decision, which I shall announce in due course.

Economic Growth

Andrew Rosindell: What changes there have been to his projections for economic growth since (a) the 2002 Budget and (b) the 2002 pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: UK gross domestic product grew by 1.6 per cent. in 2002, as projected in the pre-Budget report, and we will update our forecasts for the UK and world economies in the forthcoming Budget as normal.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that the reality is that the Chancellor got his figures wrong and that sustainable growth in this country is not compatible with high taxes? Bearing that in mind, will he now reverse the irresponsible increases, particularly in national insurance, that will come into force in April?

Paul Boateng: We will do no such thing. Those increases fund a health service that is delivering to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and that is widely supported on this side of the House, even if it is undermined by Opposition Members.

Jim Cousins: Predicting growth is particularly difficult at present. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise that. Many factors are affecting spending in the shops across the world. May I ask for an assurance that the Government's spending plans will be maintained, because if they are not, growth in this country could be put at risk?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend, who studies these matters in great detail and whose contribution to the Treasury Committee is much appreciated, is absolutely right about the uncertainty in the time in which we live. One thing we can be certain about, however, is that our projections for public finances are based on reasonable and cautious assumptions, with built-in margins for the very uncertainty and shocks to which my hon. Friend rightly draws our attention. They are and remain fully affordable. That includes our proposals for the NHS and the increase in national insurance contributions that funds them.

Matthew Taylor: Is it not extraordinary that, important as the voluntary sector and overseas aid undoubtedly are, the Chancellor ducks responding on the rather more fundamental issues of tax rises and the fall in economic growth currently taking place in this country? Can the shadow Secretary [Hon. Members: "Shadow?"] I am sorry. Can the Chief Secretary, the Chancellor's shadow, explain—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for calm. The Liberal Democrat spokesman should be heard.

Matthew Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government seek to continue to blame world recession for problems where Britain is clearly doing worse, with investment now falling faster than in any other OECD country, with the exception of Iceland? Are the Government now pinning their reputation on beating Iceland?

Paul Boateng: The shadow Chancellor from Truro is, I fear, in a bit of a muddle, and not for the first time. The fact remains that GDP growth in the United Kingdom was higher than that of any of our major EU partners and competitors in the last two years, and it is predicted to remain so in the next.

Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no plans to change our published growth rates from pounds to euros? I note that the French growth rate last year was 1.2 per cent. in real terms, and the British growth rate was 1.6 per cent., but that the growth rate in euros was much greater in France due to currency fluctuations. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the House will look at the real growth rates and continue to underline the success of our economy compared with those of our economic neighbours?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend, who represents the interests of Croydon so very well, will understand if I do not go down the euro path, but I can assure him that we have done better than France in terms of growth over the past two years and that we are predicted to do so in the next.

Michael Howard: Has the Chief Secretary forgotten that barely two weeks ago the Chancellor was boasting, on the Frost programme, that his November forecast for growth had been exceeded? Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that yesterday's figures show that even that boast, based on the Chancellor's downgraded forecast of barely two months ago, was false? How many profit warnings does the Chief Secretary think the Chancellor can survive?

Paul Boateng: The amnesia is on the side of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He seems to have forgotten that, at the last time of global downturn, inflation peaked at almost 10 per cent. and he faced interest rates that had doubled for four years. That is the Conservative record; ours is one of sustained growth and stability. That is something of which we are proud and which the Conservatives should be applauding.

Fuel Tax

Alan Whitehead: What effect on fuel tax revenues will result from changes that he has made in the taxation of green fuels.

John Healey: The Government are committed to using duty incentives to promote increased use of alternative and green fuels to improve the environmental performance of road transport. In the next financial year, the wide range of existing duty incentives to use green fuels will be worth approximately £1.4 billion.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to encouraging the development of alternative fuels. Does he accept that tax signals need to be stable and long term to assist that development? Does he intend to relate reductions to the need and opportunity for development, such as the tremendous opportunities for the development of biofuels as blends to existing fuels at the pumps?

John Healey: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters, makes an important point. At each stage since we introduced measures on duty discounts for fuels, we have both weighed the evidence available to us and signalled in good time the changes that we plan to bring in—the very point that my hon. Friend makes. We have done that both with the new cut on biodiesel that we introduced in July last year and in the pre-Budget report, when we announced ahead of time our intention to introduce a 20p per litre cut on bioethanol.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the experimental station near Selby, which was looking into making biofuels from willow produced by many farms in the Vale of York and which, regrettably, closed, despite the measures that the Government introduced? Looking ahead to the coming year, what representations has the Minister received about the extension of the lower rate of duty to biofuels? That would obviously be beneficial to the farming community, but how would he square it with the long-term interests of the oil companies in this country?

John Healey: We have received a wide range of representations and I have held meetings with a wide range of interest groups on our policies for biofuels, as the hon. Lady would no doubt have anticipated. On her point about farmers, we have set our discount duty rate at 20p per litre for biodiesel and announced our plans for bioethanol. Although the Government recognise the wider importance of the biofuel industry and the diversification potential for farming, the principal policy purpose of the biofuel duty cuts is to improve the climate change performance and to reduce climate change gases in this country. We believe that the cuts that we are proposing are sufficient to recognise the environmental benefits that we shall gain while providing good value for public money.

International Finance Facility

Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of the impact of his proposed international finance facility on education in developing countries.

Kali Mountford: What talks he has had with the European Union on the proposed international finance facility.

Gordon Brown: The international finance facility is designed to provide additional funds, and it is estimated that at least $10 billion will be needed for education alone to meet the 2015 development target that every child across the world will have access to primary school education by that date. I have discussed those proposals with a number of European Union Finance Ministers. At the G7 meeting at the weekend, we decided that further work should be done on a joint approach to the facility. The European group of Finance Ministers, ECOFIN, will consider this issue at the meeting in March.

Ernie Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that initiative. It was fairly obvious to many involved in international development that we were unlikely to meet our development goal targets under existing arrangements. Once again, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated his commitment to helping to alleviate illiteracy, poverty and underdevelopment. Does he agree that getting every child into school is part of that programme and that, unless we can get that message across and deliver that, all the work that we are doing on debt is liable to run into the sand?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He has taken up those issues in Scotland and in his constituency, working with Churches and faith organisations, and he is absolutely right. I was sorry that the shadow Chancellor from Truro said that it was wrong that I should be answering these questions today because half of Africa's children do not go to school. The development aid for Africa has fallen from $30 per head to only $18 per head over the last period of years. This is the first period in which international aid will rise to enable more young people to go to school, but there are still 115 million children who will not be going to school this week, or any week, as a result of the failure to fund education properly, and it cannot be done unless there is a breakthrough in long-term funding for countries to develop their education systems. That is why we need international support from America, France, Germany and other European countries to build that finance facility, and I hope that there will be all-party support not just for that initiative, but for the importance of publicising it and gaining support around the world.

Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend has been congratulated by me already on that marvellous initiative, but will he press on his colleagues at the ECOFIN meeting in March the fact that economic development is the best route to peace and prosperity? In these troubled times, we all ought to be aware of that. Will he ensure that his partners will share with him the long-term commitment that is needed to make sure that the peace that we all strive for can come from economic growth?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. She, too, has been active in those issues, and the important thing that she is saying is that the poverty that exists around the world and the lack of access to education and health offends not only our basic values that there should be dignity for every individual, but the national security interests of every country. That is why, for all those reasons—enlightened self-interest, as well as altruism—it is necessary to make a breakthrough on those issues. I believe that, over the next few months, working with our partners, we can make progress, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the facility and the move for primary education, but is there not a possibility that—just as congestion charges may cause congestion elsewhere—if we do not have a plan to lead on to secondary and tertiary education, we will short-change those young people? The experience in Malawi recently is that Chancellor university has not the facilities even to provide up-to-date education to provide leadership in that country.

Gordon Brown: I agree that simply to spend money on primary education, not on secondary and tertiary education, will not be sufficient, but the key to this issue lies not only in developing new systems with the capacity to deliver education, but in money. It is true that we are setting down conditions about the use of aid, transparency, avoiding corruption and opening up to trade and investment, but at the end of the day we must face up to the fact that if we are to solve those problems in the poorest countries, or to help them to solve their problems, we must provide additional aid. That is why using private as well as public funding to do so is the way forward, and I believe that we can move the international community on this project over the next few months.

National Insurance

Tim Loughton: What estimate he has made of the effect of the national insurance rises due in April on (a) individuals, (b) corporate profitability and (c) voluntary organisations.

Dawn Primarolo: Employees, employers and the self-employed will pay an additional 1 per cent. of their earnings above the national insurance threshold following the increases in contributions due from April, which will raise revenue to pay for the national health service additional funding. For employers, it is estimated that the changes will increase pay costs by an average of 0.7 per cent. next year. All employers, including those in the voluntary sector, have an interest in an efficient and effective national health service and one that is properly funded.

Tim Loughton: Will the Paymaster General take more seriously than the Chancellor the impact of her jobs tax on hospices? Does she acknowledge that they stand to suffer a shortfall of more than £2 million because of her jobs tax at a time when their share of NHS funding is shrinking? In the case of many children's hospices in particular, that share is at zero. In addition, will she acknowledge the impact that that is having on many voluntary organisations, such as the Alzheimer's Society, in relation to their professional staff, and that those costs come on top of the significant extra training standards costs arising from the Care Standards Act 2000? How would she advise those essential voluntary organisations to make up the revenue shortfall from her jobs tax? Alternatively, what front-line services should they cut?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House would want to pay tribute to the work that is done particularly by the hospice movement. He will also know that, as a result of the national insurance rises, some £40 billion extra will be available for spending by the national health service, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, on care in the community and to assist specifically with palliative care. I find it breathtaking that Conservative Members continue to ask for more money while advancing proposals either for cuts in public expenditure or for an imposition of charges and the use of private medical insurance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said to the Paymaster General that she has been verging over the boundaries of her responsibilities. I repeat that little message.

George Mudie: I think that the Paymaster General is being a little unfair to the Conservatives about their opposition to national insurance charges and the subsequent expenditure on the health service. To let the House judge whether that is so, will she conduct an exercise to see the effect on the health service of a 20 per cent. cut, and another exercise to see the financial effect on the typical family, as quoted by the shadow Chancellor, of having to meet medical costs through private insurance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Lady should answer that question.

Angela Browning: Will the Paymaster General look again at my hon. Friend's plea on behalf of the voluntary sector? It is her Government's policy—one that I support—that health and social services should have a much closer working relationship. In the voluntary sector, those services are delivered by organisations such as Age Concern and many mental health charities. We know that local authority social services are cutting contracts to the core because they can now only afford to commission statutory packages of support. The additional national insurance charge will add to that. [Hon. Members: "Question."] Here comes the question: what will she do about the reduction in services in the community that do not have the hallmark of a Government target behind them?

Dawn Primarolo: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's work in this area, as I know that she has been very involved. I am sure that she would join me in congratulating the Government on the complete reform, including additions through gift aid, and the support to charities and the voluntary sector. On her specific point, I am sure that she will welcome the £125 million futurebuilders scheme, involving the voluntary and community sector, to address the questions that she poses in the House today. I am sure that she is sad that, after years of being in government, she had to wait for the election of a Labour Government to deal with that issue.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the high unemployment rate among my constituents—double the national average. In addition, the number of people on benefit is well above average. They require help to get back into work and many of them are disabled. What will she do to ensure that the 1 per cent. burden on earnings will not be a disincentive to getting those people back into employment?

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he will join me in congratulating the Government on, I think, halving unemployment in Glasgow since 1997. I remind him of the reforms—the new deal, the national minimum wage, the welfare-to-work improvements and the investment in the national health service—that we have introduced to tackle health inequality, from which communities such as his suffer. A national insurance rise based on the Beveridge principles is the right, just and best way forward.

Euro

Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the work being undertaken on the background studies associated with the five economic tests for UK entry into the euro.

Gordon Brown: As I reported to the Treasury Committee this morning, 18 studies are being undertaken, including four that I announced in detail this morning, as part of our technical and preliminary work for our assessment of the euro tests.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Chancellor for that answer and I had the great pleasure of listening to his evidence in the Treasury Committee over the past two hours on the studies and background tests. Is it not the case, however, that while the Prime Minister remains passionate about joining the euro, the Chancellor remains deeply sceptical about the economic case? No matter how many background studies we have—I do not know whether there will be more than the 18 already in place—they will not be sufficient to paper over the yawning chasm between the two men.

Gordon Brown: There are those, like the Liberals, who would join the euro as a matter of principle without looking at the economic tests. There are those, represented by the shadow Chancellor, who would never join under any circumstances. There are those, like me, who believe that we should join the euro in principle but must get the national economic interest assessed properly by the five economic tests that we have laid down. It is precisely on that basis that I gave evidence to the Select Committee this morning to set out that the Prime Minister and I both believe in the principle of the euro, but that we must get it right economically for Britain.

Hugh Bayley: One of the five tests is on whether joining the euro would create conditions to encourage investment in Britain. When the Treasury looks at the studies that are being undertaken, will it take account of the consequences on inward investment of not joining the euro as well as the consequences of joining it?

Gordon Brown: Absolutely. One of the five tests is what effect being part of the euro will have on investment. Clearly, we have to consider both sides of the debate. Our studies are yielding a great deal of information about what motivates inward investment and what is happening to investment as a whole. Although I cannot tell my hon. Friend the results of an assessment that has not yet been completed, I am sure that he will be interested in the full and detailed results as they affect the economy as a whole and the inward investors that he mentions.

John Redwood: When making the assessment, is the Chancellor going to agree with those private sector forecasters who think that the irresponsible housing boom under the Government will be followed by a housing bust in many areas, showing that we have not converged with the continent and should not accept a one-interest-rate-fits-all policy?

Gordon Brown: Those issues are part of one of the studies that is being undertaken. The right hon. Gentleman should wait to see the results of that study on both housing itself and its implications for the rest of the economy. Again, detailed work, which I am sure he would agree is necessary, is being done, but I am not going to take any lectures on the housing market from a member of a Government who put inflation at 10 per cent. and interest rates at 15 per cent., and who caused such unnecessary damage to millions of home owners in this country.

Nigel Beard: If the five tests are satisfied, what is the likely timetable before the United Kingdom joins the European monetary union?

Gordon Brown: That matter will be addressed in the assessment that I will bring before the House after we have completed our work. If the answer is yes, we would move for a vote in Parliament on the issues and hold a referendum in the country. The people would make the final decision. If the answer is no, then I would set out the details of what will happen then.

Adam Price: Is the Chancellor aware of the Swedish proposal on the creation of a buffer fund to protect employment in the event of that country's entry into the euro? Does he see any merit in the idea of a stabilisation fund for the UK, and does he accept that there would be savings if another study were commissioned? Will he agree to meet representatives of the TUC, which has developed detailed proposals for this country based on the Swedish model?

Gordon Brown: I do not know of the TUC's detailed proposals, but obviously if it wants to put them to me, I shall look at them. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a proposal that is similar not only to the Swedish proposal but to practice in Finland. Of course, we will look at all those details, because that is part of the assessment that we are carrying out.

Caroline Flint: It is absolutely right that the people of Britain should have the final say. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying:
	"I am for keeping the Pound. If you want a leader who may one day vote to abolish the Pound, I am simply not your man."
	Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Opposition are willing to wait that long?

Gordon Brown: The issue on the single currency is this—those who would rule it out on principle are saying that even if it were in the national economic interest to join they would not do so because of dogma, which is clearly the wrong position for our country.

Howard Flight: Yesterday, in a speech to CBI London, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury advised that in addition to the Chancellor's five existing tests, the Government's decision on the euro would depend on the European Union reforming its labour and capital markets further. Does the Chancellor seriously believe that, whatever labour and capital reforms he wants, they will be in place by June so that he can assess whether their aims have been achieved? Does he have the Prime Minister's agreement on the new additional test that the Chief Secretary announced in public yesterday?

Gordon Brown: Once again, the hon. Gentleman should do his research.

Howard Flight: I was there.

Gordon Brown: The shadow Chief Secretary should do his research. To be there is not necessarily to interpret things correctly, as we have found with him on previous occasions. If he looked at the second test, he would see that it is about flexibility and is asking whether there is sufficient flexibility in economies to cope with shocks. That is exactly what the Chief Secretary was talking about yesterday. We will take lectures from the shadow Chief Secretary once he has sorted out the problem of publishing his report on 20 per cent. cuts in public spending.

Friendly Society Savings

Mark Lazarowicz: What his policy is on the taxation of friendly society savings products.

Ruth Kelly: The Government recognise the contribution of friendly societies in encouraging regular savings, particularly among the less well-off, and want a thriving friendly society sector in future. The Sandler report recommended a change to the tax rules that, if adopted, would affect some of the insurance policies sold by friendly societies, particularly their tax-exempt savings products. As announced in the pre-Budget report, we are considering that recommendation as part of the Budget process.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. When considering the proposals, will she bear in mind the fact that the abolition of tax-exempt savings products could well result in the devastation of the friendly society movement? The Association of Friendly Societies has estimated that some 50 per cent. of their members could close to new business if the proposals proceed. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out the importance of the friendly society movement in encouraging people on low incomes to save, I hope that she will realise the consequences of implementing the proposals as they stand.

Ruth Kelly: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in those issues. Of course, we are fully aware of the representations and concerns about possible implications that are regularly raised by the Association of Friendly Societies and other interested parties. However, as I said, we want to see a thriving sector in future. If my hon. Friend looks at the pre-Budget report, he will note that when designing the child trust fund another method of encouraging savings, the open market option, was preferred to licensed providers precisely because it would allow institutions such as friendly societies to offer an alternative, distinctive channel of distribution and encourage saving among the less wealthy.

Business Environment

Mark Field: What discussions he has had in advance of the Budget with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the effect of his microeconomic policies on the business environment.

Paul Boateng: The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers regularly meet ministerial colleagues across Government in advance of the Budget statement. Treasury Ministers and officials have also been conducting a programme of regional visits to listen to the views of businesses throughout the country.

Mark Field: May I respectfully suggest to the Minister that in those discussions special attention is paid to the financial burden of our increasingly inflexible labour laws on small businesses in particular? Does he agree that one of the reasons that unemployment has been so low in this country over the past 10 years compared with Germany, for example, is the fact that we have had flexible labour laws, and that that competitive advantage of the UK is fast being undermined?

Paul Boateng: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, and I well recall his contributions on the matter in the Committee that considered last year's Finance Bill, but he might usefully follow the speeches of his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, who, as recently as last month, was opining:
	"Our labour market is still more flexible than that in other EU countries."
	We intend that that should continue to be the case.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week Mr. Adair Turner, no less, suggested that labour market flexibility had gone far enough, and that it was not the way forward for the future if we want a high investment, high growth economy?

Paul Boateng: We need to make sure that we get the balance right. We make no apology, however, for introducing measures dealing with fairness at work. We make no apology for introducing the minimum wage. All those contribute to a high wage, high skill economy in which we maximise the productivity of all employees and managers.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister accept that the micro-economic effects of an increase in employers national insurance must be to reduce employment, cut wages or increase prices? Which of those three does he expect to happen?

Paul Boateng: I am afraid I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's simplistic analysis. He should tell us how he would explain not only to his hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but to all the readers of "Focus"—a diminishing band, I am happy to say—how the improvements in the health service are to be paid for without the increase in national insurance contributions.

Welfare Services

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the consequences of the changes to VAT charges for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies.

John Healey: From 31 January, all state-regulated private welfare agencies have been able to exempt their welfare services, including home care, from VAT. That means that 60,000 sick, elderly and disabled people will no longer have to pay VAT on their home care costs. Those least able to look after themselves should find it easier to remain independent and to remain in their own home.

Jim Cunningham: Has my hon. Friend any plans to extend the exemption from VAT to welfare companies?

John Healey: The VAT exemption applies to state-regulated welfare agencies that provide commercially delivered services. It covers home care agencies, foster agencies and adoption agencies. It puts them on the same VAT-exempt footing as public agencies and charities have always been. It has been widely welcomed because of that. When we announced that, the chairman of the United Kingdom Homecare Association said:
	"This exemption will make services more affordable for more people."
	He went on to say that the chosen route of a simple exemption
	"will be straightforward for providers to implement and readily understood by care users."

Small Businesses

Andrew Mitchell: What discussions he has had in advance of the Budget with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding new taxes and regulations affecting small businesses.

Dawn Primarolo: The Chancellor regularly meets my right hon. Friend, at which time he discusses a full range of relevant issues, including the Government's success in reducing corporation tax on companies and introducing such reforms as the research and development tax credit and improvements to the capital gains tax regime.

Andrew Mitchell: When those Ministers meet, why do they not hang their heads in shame at the dreadful effect of their policies? On tax, have they not put £37 billion on businesses? On regulations, have there not been 3,866 every year under this rotten Government?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but this Government have cut small business tax and cut corporation tax. We have reformed capital gains tax so that we have the most competitive system and introduced research and development tax credits. As the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation has pointed out, we have an entrepreneurial base and the best environment of any economy.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 3 March—Motion to approve the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of Sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, followed by debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the terrorist bombings in Bali on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Tuesday 4 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Communications Bill.
	Wednesday 5 March—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
	Thursday 6 March—Debate to mark international women's day on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will take an acute interest in that debate.
	Friday 7 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 10 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
	Tuesday 11 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Wednesday 12 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, followed by debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 13 March—The day will include a debate on flood and coastal defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House that was delayed from today.
	Friday 14 March—Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for March will be:
	Thursday 6 March—A debate on weekend voting and increasing voter turnout.
	Thursday 13 March—A debate on the report from the Treasury Committee on the financial regulation of public limited companies.
	Thursday 20 March—A debate on the convention on the future of Europe.
	Thursday 27 March—A cross-cutting question session on older people, followed by a debate on the joint report of the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees on strategic export controls.

Eric Forth: As ever, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the news, as far as it goes. However, why is there still complete silence from the Government on the Budget date? When will we hear the Budget day? One has to ask whether the Chancellor is Exchequer is so ashamed of what will be in his Budget that, in the spirit of Jo Moore, he will have to bury bad news under a war? Is that what is up? If it is not, surely it is time the Government and the Leader of the House came clean about what is going on and what is in the Chancellor's mind. When will we be told the Budget day? Not only do we in the House have to know, but everyone outside who is vitally interested in what is in the Budget should have time to prepare, to make representations to us and to be ready for the announcement. Please may we hear today when the Budget will be?
	On 24 February, the Leader of the House was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) whether the Prime Minister would attend the debate on Iraq, which we held yesterday, so that he could listen to Members of Parliament and, not least, to Government Back Benchers. Rather to my astonishment, the Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister
	"may have more important things to do over six hours than simply to sit in this place."—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 25.]
	Do we now have a definitive statement about the Prime Minister's attitude to the House of Commons? Do we now, at last, have on the record what we have always suspected—that the Prime Minister does not see it as any part of his role to participate in the debate and to listen to his Back Benchers? I hope that the Leader will tell us that the Prime Minister will have another opportunity to come and listen to his own Back Benchers.
	When we debated reform of the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor told us that the genius that would give us the answers to the problems of Lords reform was the Joint Committee. The Leader said that he hoped that the Joint Committee would take up the matter and provide solutions that this House, sadly, had not been able to provide. I now hear—although I can scarce believe it—that the Joint Committee may be about to commit hara-kiri very shortly, by crashing itself on the rubble of the Government's policies on Lords reform. What will the Leader do, and what will he bring to the House, if the Joint Committee no longer exists by Easter? Given the emphasis that the Government have placed on the work of the Joint Committee, we need to know how its work will continue if it decides that it no longer has anything relevant to offer?
	On 24 February, a reply was given to parliamentary question 637, which had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He had asked the Prime Minister which Minister had given final approval for the publication of the dodgy dossier. Well, the question actually calls it the
	"UK dossier on Iraq of September 2002."
	The answer given to my hon. Friend was:
	"This was a Government document cleared in the normal way."—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 254W.]
	Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree that was not a full or satisfactory answer. My hon. Friend has tabled another question:
	"To ask the Prime Minister, what the procedure was for approving and publishing the dossier entitled Iraq—Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation; and which minister had ultimate responsibility for its contents."
	If the Leader cannot answer that question today, will he provide an opportunity—urgently—for the House to pursue this matter, so that we may ask, yet again, on whose authority this crucial document, on which the Government place so much emphasis in their policy on Iraq, was published? We are surely entitled to know. Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the Foreign Secretary? Or was it Alastair Campbell? At the very least, we must be told what is going on.
	Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that
	"we are not seeking"
	a mandate for military action
	"today, because the Government have not yet got to that point. If we do reach that point, we will come back and seek a vote, through a debate in this House, on a substantive motion."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 270.]
	On Radio 4 this morning, I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, no less—she had presumably been put up by the Government to speak on their behalf—waffle when asked by John Humphrys the specific question:
	"Will there be an explicit prior vote before military action?"
	She said:
	"We will try to keep in touch with the Commons."
	She then said:
	"There is no precedent for explicit prior votes."
	She went on to make references to Churchill and Thatcher, which I found flattering and reassuring. She then said:
	"We must give no prior notice to the enemy,"
	and referred to troops in action and so on.
	There is a key question on which we need clarification—and if we cannot get that clarification, we will need a re-run of the debate so that we can find out the answer. What is the Government's view on this matter? We have the Foreign Secretary saying one thing one day and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saying something quite different the following day. Is there a Government view on this crucial matter? If so, what is it?

Robin Cook: Let me deal with the last point first, as it a matter of the gravest concern.

John Bercow: Speak up.

Robin Cook: I am very sorry. I would not wish any hon. Member on the Opposition Benches to miss a word of what I say.
	There is no doubt whatsoever about where the Government stand on this question. I have in front of me the transcript of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the continuation of what she said, which was:
	"We will continue to consult with the House of Commons."
	This Government have a good record in coming back to the House repeatedly on questions to do with Iraq or any other security issues. I also have in front of me what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.

Eric Forth: I have just quoted from it.

Robin Cook: I merely anticipated that this was a matter most likely to be raised by the right hon. Gentleman and, as always, I was correct. In terms of predicting the points that he will raise, I am happy to tell the House that we usually are correct. What the Foreign Secretary said yesterday was:
	"It is as much in the Government's interest as it is in the paramount interest of the House that we should do that"—
	that is, come to the House with a substantive motion—
	"before the start of any hostilities."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 265.]
	That could not be clearer, and I hope that it will give reassurance to the House. It is certainly our intention that we shall come back to the House and that the House will have further opportunities to vote on any second resolution that may emerge from the Security Council or on the need for military action by the Government.
	I do not think that it assists the right hon. Gentleman in what I understand to be the support of the Opposition for the Government's strategy constantly to snipe from the sidelines.

Eric Forth: Aw!

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind. Does his party support the Government's strategy or is it trying to score party political points at every possible opportunity?
	On the issue of the Budget, we have just had one hour of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

John Bercow: Too short.

Robin Cook: It could quite possibly be too short. We shall look again at whether we can have two hours rather than one. The point remains, however, that in the course of that full hour with the Chancellor not a single Member raised the question of the date of the Budget, from which I draw the conclusion that those Members who are most interested in Treasury matters have a more mature approach to this than the right hon. Gentleman. I also recall that the Opposition undertook to send to the Chancellor their full statement on how they were going to achieve their 20 per cent. cut in public spending. I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of that when he last asked this question. I shall do a deal with him. When the Opposition convince us that they have a credible plan for cutting public spending by 20 per cent., we shall certainly make sure that there is a Budget for them to grouse about.
	On the issue of the Prime Minister's attendance at the debates on Iraq, he has made a full statement on the matter and has answered questions for more than an hour in this place. It was absolutely right that he should do so, and he was keen to do so. He also addressed the House at Prime Minister's questions, as is normally the case. In addition, just before the last recess, he took two hours with the Liaison Committee, and their deliberations were predominantly on Iraq. There can be no suggestion whatever that the Prime Minister has in any way ducked his responsibility to brief the House and to face scrutiny in the House on the question of Iraq.
	My response on Monday was to the proposal that he should stay here for the full six hours of the debate. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if we are honest about this, neither he nor I sat here for the full six hours. Indeed, I believe that I am right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition did not do so either. We fully understand why the Leader of the Opposition might have been busy in the course of those six hours, and we would very much welcome a full account of just how many of his Back Benchers he had to stroke during that time.
	The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Joint Committee on House of Lords reform might be about to commit hara-kiri. The prospect of Lord Howe or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) committing hara-kiri is too awful to contemplate, and I am therefore happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on this matter. The Committee will meet again in four weeks' time, and may then consider producing a report. We shall wait and see what the outcome is, and I suggest that it might be premature for the Government to offer a view in anticipation of that.

Paul Tyler: There is a widespread view in all parts of the House that we need an urgent debate on the so-called special relationship between Britain and the United States and, specifically, the Bush Administration. That relationship seems to have become a one-way street, by contrast with previous such relationships. We all know that the healthiest relationships are two-way. May I draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, in case he did not note them—and I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not hear them—the powerful concerns expressed yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe? He said:
	"I am not alone in having heard and met American politicians of great distinction who gave the impression that a change of regime in Iraq was determined upon long ago and that the use of military force in a pre-emptive strike was justified in order to achieve that."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 294.]
	Does the Leader of the House recognise that a pre-emptive strike in the interests of regime change is a dangerous new doctrine that, if applied elsewhere in the world, would cause complete international chaos? Does he not see an apparent contradiction between the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and what the Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)? He said:
	"The argument about regime change has not changed. I have always said that the purpose of any action has got to be the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction." —[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 130.]
	Yesterday, in answer to an intervention, the Foreign Secretary made a similar point. He said that:
	"the focus of 1441 is not regime change per se, but the disarmament of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 272.]
	I am sure that, as a former Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House read the text of last night's address by President Bush with care. It was all about regime change: it spelled it out in awful detail. It would seem that President Bush is bent on a course that is completely at odds with the proposals put to us, and the reassurances given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
	I wonder, too, whether the debate I have requested might give us an opportunity to examine carefully the reliability of US intelligence sources. Given the extraordinary mistaken identity case of Mr. Derek Bond, the Leader of the House might care to speculate whether the FBI is now mistaking either the Archbishop of Canterbury or him for Osama bin Laden in disguise.

Robin Cook: I am not sure that I followed that last sentence, but I am sure the whole House will feel for Derek Bond after his ordeal. I understand that he is considering what legal remedies are available to him, but it would not be appropriate for us to comment on that.
	The Government's policy on Saddam is absolutely clear. The Government are responsible for their position and not for any other position—their position being that force must be only a last resort, but must be available if a last resort is needed.
	I think the question that the hon. Gentleman's party will have to face some day is this: in the event that the inspectors do report that they are not receiving adequate co-operation, and in the event that that is followed by a second Security Council resolution, will the Liberal Democrats remain willing to support the position they appeared to take last autumn when resolution 1441 was passed—that the will and authority of the United Nations must be upheld, even if that requires the use of force as a last resort? That is our position; it is perfectly clear, and we would welcome similar clarity from the hon. Gentleman's party.
	I personally found much to welcome in what President Bush said yesterday about the middle east peace process. I hope that after the Iraq crisis is resolved substantial priority will be given to making progress in the middle east, based on the two important requirements mentioned by President Bush yesterday—the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state, and an end to all settlement construction.

Tam Dalyell: May I raise the question of the dossier—dodgy or otherwise, but deemed sufficiently important to be praised by general Colin Powell in his worldwide television broadcast? Yesterday I asked the Foreign Secretary:
	"As a question of fact and before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of documents, did the dossier that owed so much to that Californian student have the authority of Peter Ricketts and the Joint Intelligence Committee? Did the Joint Intelligence Committee authorise that dossier?"—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 266.]
	My right hon. Friend replied that Peter Ricketts had not been there for two years, but the Library supplied me with a document that confirmed that he was certainly there in September 2002—and confirmed, before I mentioned it, that he was still responsible for the Joint Intelligence Committee.
	Be that as it may, let me now ask a direct question. Was this document authorised by John Scarlett and other members of the Joint Intelligence Committee? Did it have their imprimatur?

John Bercow: Yes or no? Now!

Robin Cook: It is terribly kind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to back up my hon. Friend, but I am not a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee. I no longer see its papers, nor would I expect to do so. I have the highest personal regard for both John Scarlett and Peter Ricketts, with whom I have worked in the past and who are men of integrity and intelligence. I am not in a position to say one way or the other whether the document was cleared by the committee, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and invite him, if he can, to add to what he said in the House yesterday.

Peter Ainsworth: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Transport this morning unveiled a consultation paper on aviation and airport development. It is based on the discredited "predict and provide" approach to planning and, incidentally, threatens massive and unsustainable environmental damage to my constituency and to the area surrounding Gatwick airport. Will the Leader of the House promise an early opportunity for the House to debate this important consultation paper, so that all opinions can be aired?

Robin Cook: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the initial consultation document did not include Gatwick and the surrounding area because an undertaking was given to the residents of Gatwick some time ago that we would not return to the expansion of Gatwick. The courts ruled against the Government on that question, which is why we have been obliged to reissue the consultation document with the inclusion of Gatwick. However, I do not anticipate that the final policy judgments will be made by the courts that gave that ruling; they will be made within the Government, and will be subject to all the various considerations, including previous commitments given to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and to those living around Gatwick.
	It is very important that we look at this issue in the round, and that we achieve a strategic perspective on where future aviation provision should be. I fully endorse what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said this morning on the radio. The one thing that must unite all the communities affected by the consultation is that we need to reach a decision—as quickly as we reasonably can, and consistent with that consultation—and remove the blight that may otherwise affect many of those areas.

Parmjit Dhanda: Bearing in mind the fact that some £80 million of European Union money and a further £10 million of British Government money has gone into Palestine and the occupied territories in the past 12 months to help humanitarian projects, is it not time that we considered an urgent statement in the House on whether some of that money has effectively been destroyed by military incursions by the Israeli military, and whether, as a result, we need to approach the Israeli Government to get compensation for the European Union and the British Government?

Robin Cook: I am not sure that compensation would offer a fruitful avenue of dialogue. However, we certainly have maintained considerable dialogue with the Israeli Government, through the European Union and bilaterally, on the importance of responding to the humanitarian position in the Palestinian territories, and of assisting the Palestinian Authority in the economic development of its people. All Members of the House must be acutely concerned at the very serious and mounting evidence of the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. It cannot assist the peace process if the people of Palestine find that their own lives are becoming increasingly difficult in economic terms, and if there is increasing evidence of malnutrition among their children. We are more likely to achieve progress towards peace if the local people themselves can see that progress is being made on the ground in terms of their quality of life.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should remind the House that questions to the Leader of the House should relate to the business that has been announced for the next fortnight. Some of the questions are straying much wider than that, so I offer that reminder on this occasion.

Angela Browning: I wonder whether, despite the very busy schedule that the Leader of the House has announced, he can find a little time for a debate entitled "Government websites and their role in the democratic process". In 2000, the Prime Minister came to my constituency and announced that the Government would resurface the A30 between Honiton and Exeter—an issue that I have raised in three separate parliamentary debates, exchanged correspondence on and tabled written questions about. I recently received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). He informed me that I must scan the Highways Agency website, apparently at random, in order to find out as and when the Government decide to answer this question. That is unacceptable, and I have told him so. I hope that the Leader of the House is as concerned as I am that the random scanning of Government websites is now part of our democratic process.

Robin Cook: May I first thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your ruling to the House, which, if observed, would indeed be a procedural innovation on Thursdays? I should like, if I may, to look at the detail of what the hon. Lady says, but I would plainly want Members of the House to have a full and helpful reply. Sometimes Government websites can themselves be a source of great information and assistance—

Eric Forth: No, never!

Robin Cook: I am not quite sure with what authority and personal experience of websites the right hon. Gentleman expresses his view, but I shall certainly try to ensure that the hon. Lady receives as full a reply as possible.

David Winnick: Did not yesterday's debate again demonstrate that all those who say that the House of Commons is no longer important are talking nonsense and have been proved wrong? Is it not important that, during future debates on the same subject, we avoid giving the wrong signals to the bloody tyrant in Baghdad about our determination, as part of the international community, that disarmament must take place or he must face the consequences?

Robin Cook: It is very important that Saddam Hussein fully understand that all who took part in yesterday's debate, however they may have voted at the end of it, want him to comply with his obligations under the United Nations Security Council; indeed, there would be a very substantial body of support in the House for making sure that the authority of the United Nations is upheld.
	I agree with my hon. Friend about yesterday's debate demonstrating to the world outside the importance of Parliament as the crucible in which the major issues of the nation, and the major challenges of international affairs, are fought out. Although not every article that appeared in this morning's papers would necessarily have been written by the Government Information and Communications Service, it is worth noting that those acres of comment and editorial were possible only because we moved the vote forward to seven o'clock in the evening.

Henry Bellingham: I ask the Leader of the House to have a look at column 257 of yesterday's Hansard, where the Prime Minister says:
	"What is more, people should go to university based on their merit, whatever their class or background."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 257.]
	The right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said a few days ago:
	"I approve of the actions of Bristol university and others who are trying to attract students who have potential to learn."
	He appears to be completely out of control: he is a bull in a china shop, and is still fighting the class war. Will the Leader of the House have a word with him and ensure that he talks to the Prime Minister, so that the Government have a coherent policy on this very important issue?

Robin Cook: Of course, it is very important that the Government have a coherent policy, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all members of the Government are united in our determination to ensure that we widen access to university for people of all social classes. There is an issue that does need to be addressed. On entry to the top universities in Britain, it is interesting to note that 7 per cent. of entrants came from the state school population, and 39 per cent. came from independent schools. I do not believe that the relative balance between entry from independent schools and from state schools actually matches—

Eric Forth: Merit?

Robin Cook: I do not believe that the small proportion of the population who go to independent schools actually account for 40 to 50 per cent. of the merit of our young population. That is why we have said that it is very important that we widen access and ensure that people are admitted on merit, but admitted fairly on merit.
	I should also point out to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that this Government have widened access to universities for all social classes. Whether in terms of independent schools or state schools, access has increased under this Government. It is not this Government but his party that is proposing that entry to university be capped for everybody.

John McDonnell: I express to my right hon. Friend my regret that today's business was not adjusted to allow for an oral statement on the runway capacity consultation paper that was published today. Can we adjust the business of the House over the next fortnight accordingly? The House was given an undertaking that the new document would contain information on Gatwick, which it does. However, we were also told that it would be updated to include, for example, information from the royal commission on environmental pollution—the Government's own commission—which identified the air pollution risk to my constituents and others. We also believed that the new material would take into account the terrorist threat of surface-to-air missile attacks on aircraft, particularly on those landing and taking off at Heathrow, which would have an impact on the entire capital. However, today's document takes neither of those issues into account. May I ask for a statement in the House within the next fortnight, or, failing that, a commitment to a statement in June, at the end of the consultation period?

Robin Cook: I know the enormous importance of the issue to my hon. Friend's constituents and I fully understand the close interest that he therefore takes in the matter. That will not be the last word from the Government on the subject. We will publish further papers and documents in which some of those matters can be covered. As I said earlier, it is important for those in all the areas affected by the consultation process that we should move to a decision—consistent with the consultation process that we have extended—and for that reason it would not have been welcome in those communities if we had delayed the White Paper for further work of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred.
	I wish to clarify the figures that I mentioned earlier. Some 7 per cent. of the school population attend independent schools, but those pupils make up 39 per cent. of entry to the top universities. I am all in favour of ensuring that entry to university is based on merit, but I am not sure that the vast difference between those two percentages reflects merit and no other consideration.

Roy Beggs: I would like to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early day motion 561.
	[That this House notes that community pharmacists offer their local communities convenient access to NHS services; recognises their role in reducing the burden on local general practitioners; notes the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading that pharmaceutical dispensing should be made open to free market competition; is concerned that supermarkets would use their market power to undermine and eliminate small local pharmacies and thereby effect a net loss of NHS provision; and urges Her Majesty's Government not to accept this recommendation of the OFT.]
	The motion urges the Government not to accept the recommendation from the Office of Fair Trading that pharmaceutical dispensing should be made open to free-market competition. Deregulation would be disadvantageous to those who are already disadvantaged in our society. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the report to be debated in the House before the Government act on it?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the report from the director general of the OFT is not a Government report. It is now with us and we are considering it. The Department of Trade and Industry will make its response in the fullness of time. I would just point out that all Members, including Ministers, fully value the importance of the pharmaceutical industry and the service that it provides to local communities. We must ensure that that is fully reflected in any judgment that we reach on the report.

Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend will recall that a few weeks ago I raised with him the consequences of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He will also recall that some days ago the High Court decided that section 55 infringed the human rights of asylum seekers. My understanding is that the Home Office is likely to appeal against that decision, and that the appeal will probably be heard the week after next. In view of that timetable, will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on section 55 specifically so that the House may give its view on its operation and advise the Home Secretary whether to pursue the appeal procedure?

Robin Cook: I am not able to offer a debate within the next two weeks in view of the business that I have already announced. I can see difficulties ahead if I changed that business, given that it has already been announced and covers areas of considerable interest to many right hon. and hon. Members. However, it would also be difficult for the House to have a debate on a matter that is very much before the courts, in this case the Appeal Court. In the event that the Appeal Court upholds the existing ruling, consultation will have to take place on the Government's intentions, but in the meantime the matter is before the courts. As soon as judgment has been reached, I am sure that the Home Secretary will wish to make the Government's position clear to the House.

Andrew MacKay: Uncharacteristically, the Leader of the House did not answer all the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I ask the Leader of the House again just which Minister or official cleared the dodgy dossier. As this now looks like a cover-up, can he ensure that a statement is made next week by the Minister concerned?

Robin Cook: I understand that the paper was not issued as a Command Paper and, therefore, the process of ministerial accountability for White Papers would not necessarily apply. The right hon. Gentleman heard me respond to the shadow Leader of the House and my central point remains true—if the Opposition wish to support the Government strategy and to be identified with the firm position being taken by the Prime Minister, they must resist the opportunity to try to score political points at every twist and turn.

Alice Mahon: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the question of the changed hours? They are causing many problems, and not only for Members of Parliament. Many staff are anxious about the future of their employment and I understand that it is difficult to find Members to serve on Committees. As a northern MP, I now have only Monday mornings free for school parties. I have encouraged schools to visit to watch debates and to look round. It is part of our democracy to visit the House, but the present arrangements are causing difficulties because they mean that Northern MPs have to give up visits in their constituencies on Monday mornings. May we have an urgent debate on the hours and how they are working, or not working? After all, we should not be trying to accommodate newspaper editors. This House is more important than they are.

Robin Cook: I am not in favour of accommodating newspaper editors in any way, but I am in favour of accommodating our constituents, who have every right to be informed about what happens in this place. As a result of the vote yesterday taking place at 7 o'clock, they had a much fuller account of what happened here than they would have had if we had divided at 10 o'clock. Although I can well understand why that argument might not necessarily appeal to all my colleagues on the Front Bench, I had hoped that it would appeal to my hon. Friend.
	On the question of access for schools, I am fully seized of the importance of reaching out and making contact with schools. For that very reason, the Modernisation Committee is considering how we may improve access to the House and ensure that we strengthen our education service and reach out to schools around Britain. However, it is a matter of fact that the overwhelming preponderance of schools that visit this place have a relative geographic proximity to it, and there are other ways in which we can provide a parliamentary link to schools at some distance, which would be of great value to all regions of Britain.

John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate, in Government time, on the Government's plans for a massive increase in house building across the south of England? Given that the Milton Keynes south Midlands study envisages a further 59,000 houses in the Aylesbury vale area between now and 2031 and that there is an estimated associated cost for infrastructure of £8.5 billion—there seems little prospect that we shall meet that cost—does the Leader of the House understand that my constituents are concerned about air pollution, traffic congestion, pressure on school places and access to medical facilities, and that they need to have their concerns urgently addressed and allayed?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct that any house building must be accompanied by an appropriate level of public service and physical infrastructure to ensure that the quality of life marches in step with the increase in housing volume. I fully understand the importance of that. It is also important that we minimise the pressure on greenfield sites, which is why I am proud that the Government have achieved their target of 60 per cent. development of residential accommodation on brownfield sites. Having said that, we face acute demand for additional housing in the south-east and that is one reason why we face a substantial rise in house prices in the area, which I am sure will be of concern to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are looking for a new home for the first time. We cannot hope to address that concern if we do not provide substantial numbers of additional homes for those who want to live in the south-east.

David Taylor: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the report of the Commission for Health Improvement on the Government's private finance initiative flagship, the Cumberland infirmary, which is a document as critical and coruscating as I have ever seen? Has he noted that it reports raw sewage bubbling out of scrub sinks, doors hanging off, and more leaks than Cardiff city centre on St. David's day? Will he find time in the next 14 days for a Government statement on the future of the PFI policy, which is seriously and fundamentally flawed? It damages patients' and public confidence in the NHS. Finally, will he recall—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is sufficient. There is too much embellishment of questions.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is correct that the picture painted in the report is very serious and I understand that the chief executive of the health trust has departed its service, partly as a result of the report. It focused on the way in which the PFI was managed. Before my hon. Friend erects a general case of principle based on this matter, I note that the same body has also produced reports on the PFI projects at Durham and Dartford, which were very positive in their conclusions and stated that those projects worked well. That should be set against the report on the Cumberland project.

John Pugh: During the recess, a resident from my area was shot dead by terrorists in Saudi Arabia. Two years ago, another constituent was maimed in a similar outrage. British subjects are currently languishing in Saudi jails, having been tortured and deprived of sleep. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement on the Floor of the House about the security of British citizens in Saudi Arabia and the threat of terrorism there?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our advice about travel to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is constantly updated and kept under review. I am familiar with the background to a number of cases involving British citizens detained in Saudi Arabia because, sadly, they go back for more than two years. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government—through local embassies, and through Ministers—repeatedly express concern about UK citizens involved in such cases, and that we seek to achieve a proper system to ensure that those people can be brought to trial or released.

Tony Colman: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 667 on the demise of wide-based share option schemes in the UK as a result of the new accounting regulations to be agreed shortly?
	[That this House notes the great benefits to employees and employers of broad-based employee shares schemes which have been promoted by this and previous Governments and from which millions of UK employees have benefited to the extent of over £35 billion; registers its grave concerns over the impact on such schemes of the International Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board proposals on accounting for share-based payments; notes the calls by the TUC, ProShare and others that broad-based schemes should be excluded from this new accounting charge; calls on the Government to add its voice to the calls for such an exclusion; and further calls upon the International Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board to draft wording which, while abiding by the general principle of the proposed standard, would exclude broad-based schemes from an accounting charge.]
	That change would adversely affect millions of constituents, and is also worrying the TUC, the Confederation of British Industry and National Association of Pension Funds. Does he agree that an early debate is needed so that the House can express its own concerns before the accounting standards come into force later in March?

Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his detailed early-day motion, although I have not yet had time to read it fully and to the end. The Government fully understand the benefits of employee share schemes. We would not want to do anything that made it impossible to maintain those benefits or schemes. I am sure that the matter that my hon. Friend has raised will be explored fully by the Treasury, with an understanding of the points that he has made.

Douglas Hogg: The Leader of the House will know that the US is holding a number of UK citizens at Guantanamo bay. It is suggested that they are terrorists. I know nothing about the truth or otherwise of that, but may we have an early statement or debate so that the Government can say what is being done to get the status and future of the people defined properly? Surely they should have the full protection of the law. Surely they should be either charged or released. They have been held for 18 months or so. That cannot be right.

Robin Cook: I have great sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general point. I assure him that our consuls in the US have paid a number of visits to those British citizens, and that the issue has been raised repeatedly with the US Administration. Plainly, we will continue to take a close interest in the welfare and legal rights of British citizens there.

Louise Ellman: Now that France has threatened to use its veto on a second UN resolution on Iraq, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a debate in the next fortnight to consider France's business interests in Iraq? Those interests go back to the 1975 French-Iraqi nuclear co-operation treaty signed by Jacques Chirac, when he was Prime Minister, and Saddam Hussein. The treaty marked the beginning of the supply of French equipment to Iraq to build up a nuclear arsenal in exchange for extensive support for French business commitments.

Robin Cook: The Government's position is that there should be a second resolution. We are actively seeking to promote a second resolution, with support from close European partners such as Spain. I am not entirely confident that pursuing the argument outlined by my hon. Friend would assist in the process of building consensus around the resolution. However, I assure her that we will do all we can to achieve common ground with France in a way that enables the resolution to proceed.

Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House announced that, next week, a day each will be spent on the respective Report stages of the Local Government Bill and the Communications Bill. That means that the Report stages of those Bills will have been examined on the Floor of the House for two days each, at least. I was not a member of the Standing Committees examining those Bills, but I was a member of the Committee scrutinising the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that only a small proportion of that Bill's clauses and schedules were examined in Committee? Will he assure the House that at least two days will be spent on the Report stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill?

Robin Cook: We will, of course, carefully consider the volume of amendments tabled on Report, and the progress made in Committee. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct; there will have been two days for the Report stages of both the Local Government Bill and the Communications Bill. With respect, I suggest that that demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring that legislation gets adequate time for scrutiny on the Floor of the House.

Anne Begg: The long-awaited Energy White Paper was published on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity in the coming weeks to debate the issues raised in the White Paper, and the implications for constituencies such as mine?

Robin Cook: I am very aware of the House's strong interests in energy matters. The White Paper to which my hon. Friend refers is very important. It sets out a perspective for reducing carbon gases, meeting our commitment to halt and reverse global warming, and making sure that we tackle other issues such as fuel poverty, which is a matter of concern in all constituencies. I am sure that it will be important for the House to consider these matters at some stage. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind for the future.

Nigel Dodds: The Prime Minister is having discussions today with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. More discussions are scheduled to take place between them and parties in Northern Ireland on Monday next. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an early statement from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on those discussions? Current negotiations with IRA-Sinn Fein on a list of concessions in return for things that the IRA should have done years ago should also be covered. Those concessions are causing great concern for people in Northern Ireland. May we have an early debate on those matters, so that the views of those people can be heard by the Government?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that intensive discussions are under way to see how we can restore momentum to the Northern Ireland peace process. I hope that that will command the support of all hon. Members. It is very important that we try to keep that process going. In that context, I do not know how helpful it is to describe any proposal on the table as a concession to one side or the other. There has to be compromise on all sides, especially by the paramilitaries, whether loyalist or republican. There must be real acts of completion if we are to restore the necessary momentum to the peace process. Plainly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make sure that the House is informed. The House will accept that my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the peace process, and that he has honourably sought to keep the House informed about its progress. If progress is made, I am sure that the House will be the first to be informed.

David Chaytor: Has my right hon. Friend followed the increasingly vitriolic campaign waged by extreme right-wing newspapers against some of our leading universities that are trying to improve their admissions procedures by basing entry on merit? Has my right hon. Friend seen this week's statement from the group Universities UK, criticising some schools in the Headmasters Conference for applying exceptional pressure on universities—and especially on Bristol and Edinburgh universities—and will he find time for a debate in the next two weeks on the subject. The issues need to be considered on the basis of fact and evidence, and not of myth and hysteria.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and articulates a real concern expressed by a number of universities. It is to Bristol university's credit that it has responsibly made sure that it is the academic staff and tutors who make admission decisions, based on merit. The university has made genuine attempts to make sure that the population basis of Britain is more fairly reflected, and that admission is open and accessible to all schools.
	Apparently, one factor in admissions is whether people from state schools are applying to certain universities. Some universities seem to be rather poor at attracting applications from state schools. That matter is in their hands, and they could remedy it. Also, some universities seem to have a bias in the acceptance that follows applications. It is interesting that some figures show that even among pupils with comparable A-level results there is a higher success rate for those from independent schools than for those from state schools. Those do not in any way trench on the importance of admitting students on the basis of merit, but they reflect issues that universities could put right. Those universities that have tackled them and put them right deserve to be praised not pressurised.

Julian Lewis: While we are rightly focusing on Iraq, may I nevertheless ask for a further debate on Zimbabwe? That would enable me to raise the case of the family of my constituent Hilary Parsons, whose son and daughter-in-law have been forced off their farm at Karoi, whose daughter-in-law and grandchildren were attacked by a mob of 30 so-called war veterans when they returned to see if the remaining animals were all right, who were told that an official of the Zimbabwe Football Association, one Temba Mliswa, now owns the farm—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not give the contents of the speech that he would make if such a debate were to be granted. I think that the Leader of the House may have got the point.

Robin Cook: I welcome the fact that regularly on a Thursday hon. Members raise their concerns about Zimbabwe, because it is very important that the Government of Zimbabwe should be under no illusion about the depth and breadth of feeling on the issue in this House. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the appalling things taking place in Zimbabwe are wholly deplored on both sides of the House, in particular the forcible land settlement of people who have contacts with the regime at the expense of people who previously owned and farmed that land. That is not only wholly unacceptable, but partly contributes to the appalling malnutrition and food shortages in Zimbabwe.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the welcome boost given to the British shipbuilding industry by the recent announcement on the building of aircraft carriers. It is to be hoped that other independent yards such as Fergusons in Port Glasgow will also benefit from that. May I ask him to make time for an important debate about industries such as electronics that have a major impact on local economies but where thousands of people are losing their jobs not through their own fault but because employers are choosing to take advantage of the low wage economies in eastern Europe?

Robin Cook: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the stimulus to the shipbuilding industry that has resulted from Government decisions. I understand his concerns about the electronics industry. Representing as I do a constituency where many thousands of people work in the electronics industry, I am well aware of the pressures that it faces and the troubled times for those who work in it.
	I understand my hon. Friend's point about transfers to lower-wage economies, but the only way in which we can be confident that we can beat that trend and ensure that we have secure employment in our own country is to continue to improve the skills of our people and to invest in education so that we can provide higher added value than any cheaper-wage economy. The signs are, from the overall employment figures, that we are succeeding in that, and I am pleased to say that there are now almost 1.5 million more people at work than there were in 1997 when we took office.

Mark Francois: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the question that my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House asked about the delay in the announcement of the Budget, in reply to which all we got was a lot of party political knockabout? May I ask in a very straightforward manner what is really the reason for that delay?

Robin Cook: I thought that I responded to the question in the terms in which it was put to me. I have never got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would complain about party political knockabout. On the Budget, it is still February, which is early days as far as the Budget is concerned. [Hon. Members: "What?"] Well, I think that I am correct in saying that it is still February. I am always acutely aware of when February ends, because 28 February is my birthday. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] It is a matter of great regret to me that we are having this exchange on 27 February, not 28 February. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget normally takes place in the spring, and I have no reason to believe that it will be different this year.

Hugh Bayley: I wish my right hon. Friend many happy returns for tomorrow and thank him for so promptly reinstating the debate about flooding that we were to have had today.
	It is now more than two years since the devastating floods hit York. The Environment Agency has been carrying out a major study of the Ouse catchment, the larger of the two rivers that flow through York, to enable it to predict more accurately the risk of flooding in future. Hundreds of householders in York whose houses were flooded two years ago are waiting for that study, because on it hangs the cost-effectiveness of improving flood defences that would protect them from further floods. Does the Leader of the House know whether the Environment Agency intends to publish that report before we have our debate on flooding in two weeks' time?

Robin Cook: It was with regret that we had to postpone the debate on flood defences, but all hon. Members will understand that we had an important House matter to resolve today. I am very pleased that we have restored the debate to take place within the next two weeks. My hon. Friend's comments demonstrate that it will feature speeches of quality. I cannot say whether the report will be published by then, but I shall draw the Environment Agency's attention to my hon. Friend's request that it should be.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a particular appeal for brevity so that I can try to accommodate all hon. Members who are rising?

Michael Weir: May I take the Leader of the House back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on the pharmacy report? May we have an urgent debate on that report to Government? It not only threatens to undermine small town and rural pharmacies, but endangers moves by Scottish community pharmacies to create new services, especially in relation to chronic pain management. It is important that the matter is dealt with urgently to end the uncertainty.

Robin Cook: I understand the great interest in that matter on the part of the industry and of the customers and communities that it serves. I am not sure whether it would necessarily be in the interests of a favourable outcome to have an urgent debate, but I shall certainly make sure that the Department of Trade and Industry is aware of the interest that has been expressed during today's and previous business questions. It is evident that there is considerable constituency interest in the matter. I am sure that when the Government have reached their view the House will wish to hear it and, if appropriate, to consider it further.

Russell Brown: Yesterday, in reply to a question on Iraq by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), the Prime Minister stated that
	"the House will have the opportunity to vote on this issue many times".—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 258.]
	I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's response to the shadow Leader of the House, but can I ask him to give serious consideration to a further debate on Iraq on the day after the UN Security Council votes on the second resolution, even if it means debating the matter on a non-sitting day?

Robin Cook: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will keep the matter under close review and that we will want to give the earliest practical opportunity to the House to debate the outcome of any second resolution. I am not at present clear whether that will necessarily require the kind of emergency procedure that my hon. Friend suggests, but it is perfectly plain from the statements of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself that the Government want the House to have the opportunity to endorse a future second resolution in the Security Council as soon as possible. As the Foreign Secretary said, it is as much in the interests of the Government as of the House that that should be done before any military action.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Leader of the House find time in the next two weeks for the introduction of a Government Bill to amend the Human Tissue Act 1961? The Leader of the House may be aware that Alder Hey has expressed its profound apologies to the families, but I know from talking to the family support group at Addenbrookes hospital in my constituency that their distress would be at least partly mitigated by the knowledge that the Government are acting speedily to amend the 1961 Act, as the chief medical officer recommended in his report on Alder Hey two years ago.

Robin Cook: I fully understand the enormous distress and anxiety that has been caused to constituents of the hon. Gentleman by the events to which he refers. He will be aware that the Government have committed themselves to ensuring that we carry through all the recommendations that have been put to us and which we have accepted. Where that requires legislation, we will provide it. My expectation is that he will see that legislation in the course of this Session.

Paul Flynn: Do not yesterday's proceedings prove the urgent need for a day's debate on the desirability of a British war powers Act? Yesterday showed that we are the crucible of the nation for debate but emphasised that we have no powers to decide whether to go to war. Such a decision is made by only two people: the Prime Minister and the Head of State, who lacks democratic accountability.
	The arrangement worked well in the past because almost every time that we have gone to war, it has been with the wholehearted consent of the majority of the people of this nation. We have debated the subject many times, but on this occasion the more knowledge that people have about our plans to go to war, the greater their opposition.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend understates the crucial role of the House of Commons in the matter. I said many months ago that it was inconceivable that a British Government would commit British troops to military action without the support of the House of Commons. That must remain the case. Ministers may make the decision, but they, including the Prime Minister, are accountable to this place. To be fair to the Prime Minister, we have made it plain throughout that we want to be accountable to this place and to carry it with us, and that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to vote on a substantive motion when the time comes.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of House ensure that a statement is made next week to tackle the criticisms in the Public Administration Committee report on ombudsmen? It relates largely to a finding by the ombudsman in response to a criticism by me that, for the first time, the Government had not accepted the ombudsman's advice on access to official information. Perhaps a statement would help us to understand why the Government say so much about freedom of information but are secretive and hypocritical when it comes to the provision of information.

Robin Cook: For the record, the Government introduced and are implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Conservative Government refused to introduce such a measure.

Iain Luke: My right hon. Friend may not know about the unhappiness of hon. Members of all parties about the restrictions on the debate about the Scottish economy in the previous Scottish Grand Committee meeting, which was held on 18 February. The debate was restricted because of an inability to award extra time and the Divisions in the House. As Chair of the Modernisation Committee, will my right hon. Friend undertake to place on the agenda of its next meeting in the next two weeks a review of the workings of the Scottish Grand Committee and other Grand Committees to make them more relevant to the work of the House? Perhaps we could have a system along the lines of the cross-border institutions in Ireland, whereby Members of Parliament, Ministers, MSPs and Assembly Members could come together to discuss issues that straddle the devolved divide.

Robin Cook: I am aware from the comments of members of the Scottish Grand Committee of the frustration caused by the loss of time through Divisions in the House. We can deal with that through Standing Orders, and with the power of the Chair to extend the length of Scottish Grand Committee's sittings to compensate for time lost in Divisions. I am willing to do that without necessarily going through the Modernisation Committee.
	My hon. Friend raised a large question when he suggested full meetings in Committee of Members of this places and Members of other places such as the Scottish Parliament. I do not necessarily oppose such a proposal but not every Member for a Scottish constituency would wholeheartedly endorse it. I would want to know that there was consensus before proceeding further.

David Burnside: The Government have been constructive in presenting to the House information and intelligence to allow hon. Members to evaluate the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to world peace. The police and our intelligence services provide that information.
	In the next seven to 14 days, the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party must decide whether to go back into an Executive with Sinn Fein. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland to give the House an evaluation of Colombia, Castlereagh, Stormontgate and the threat posed by republican terrorists? We cannot make a judgment without that intelligence information.

Robin Cook: Any process that the Government undertake to restore momentum to the peace process must take account of our knowledge of the activities of those who are party to it. That is important, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are clear that if the peace process is to progress we need a definite commitment to acts of completion by paramilitary organisations on both sides. I am not sure whether it would be sensible to disclose in public intelligence information that may not be relevant to future criminal activities.

Desmond Swayne: May we have a statement next week on the administrative difficulties that may arise if the Budget is not presented next month or, as matters currently appear, it disappears completely?

Robin Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no risk of the Budget disappearing. The Government would never miss giving the House an opportunity to celebrate the fact that we have lower unemployment and lower inflation than ever existed under the Conservative Government, and a sounder economy and lower interest rates than they achieved.

Tim Loughton: Again, the business statement did not mention the mental health Bill, which is eagerly anticipated by Conservative Members and the individuals and organisations throughout the country that provided more than 2,000 consultation responses to the draft measure. When can we expect the Bill? Will the final measure remove the obnoxious coercion provisions in the draft Bill? If the Bill will not be introduced soon, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on mental health? In the past, we have given time in Supply days to debate the state of mental health provision or its lack in many parts of the country. There are gaps in adolescent mental health provision and increasing waiting times for services.

Robin Cook: Work on the mental health Bill continues carefully and with due process precisely because of the large volume of responses to the consultation process. As hon. Members know, I strongly argued that we should consult on draft legislation, try to find ways in which the public can comment on it and enter into debate with the most interested lobby and professional groups. That happened with the mental health Bill. It is right and proper to ensure adequate time to reflect on the responses and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, try to accommodate them in a future text.

Hugh Robertson: In a recent written answer, the Ministry of Defence disclosed that up to 10,400 of our service men and women who are currently deploying to the Gulf face cuts in their local overseas allowance of between 20 per cent. and 35 per cent. Early-day motion 779 deals with the matter.
	[That this House recognises that 10,400 members of the armed forces deployed to the Gulf are in receipt of local overseas allowance; deplores the Ministry of Defence's decision to remove 20 per cent. of that allowance for single and married unaccompanied personnel after the first 17 days of any deployment and 35 per cent. of that allowance for married accompanied personnel if their spouse leaves their permanent duty station for more than 17 days; and urges the Ministry of Defence to ensure that no member of the armed forces loses out financially through service in the Gulf.]
	Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes an urgent statement in the House on the entire welfare package? That will be of interest to hon. Members of all parties. Does he agree that no member of our armed forces should lose out financially through service in the Gulf?

Robin Cook: My hon. and right hon. Friends who are Defence Ministers are fully aware of the importance of maintaining morale and motivation in the forces. Welfare is an important part of that and my ministerial colleagues will give careful consideration to ensuring that the welfare of all members of the armed forces and their families is fully taken care of.

John Barrett: When the Leader of the House considers the request for an early debate on the future of our pharmacies, which the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned earlier, will he bear it in mind that the Government gave a commitment to respond within 90 days of the publication of the Office of Fair Trading report and that we are already 40 days into that period?

Robin Cook: Certainly, I will do so, but according to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, there are almost 50 days to go. I have no reason to believe that the Government will not meet the deadline.

Standards and Privileges

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House—
	(i) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 435); and
	(ii) accordingly suspends Mr Michael Trend, Member for Windsor, from the service of the House for two weeks.—[Mr. Heppell.]

George Young: I commend to the House the motion to approve the Committee's third report, which was agreed unanimously on 12 February, and the related recommendation to suspend my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) from the service of the House for two weeks.
	On 13 February, when the report was published, my hon. Friend made a personal statement in which he accepted unreservedly the report's conclusions that he had been muddled and naive in his negligent understanding of the additional costs allowance. He apologised unreservedly to Mr. Speaker and to his constituents. Hon. Members will acknowledge the speed with which my hon. Friend came to the House to accept the report's conclusions and to apologise for his conduct, and the terms in which he did that.
	The background to this case was a report in The Mail on Sunday on 15 December that my hon. Friend had returned to his house in Windsor while claiming an allowance intended to cover the cost of overnight stays in London. His reaction to the allegations was that they were wrong, and he immediately contacted the Department of Finance and Administration to confirm that his understanding was correct. While his discussions with the department did indeed confirm that he had never claimed additional costs allowance in respect of his London address, they revealed that he had seriously misunderstood the significance of identifying his main residence for this purpose.
	Although my hon. Friend believed that his conduct had always been perfectly proper, he accepted that he had misunderstood the rules, and agreed to repay, without delay, the sum that he was told was due. That was done, in full, on 23 December.
	The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards subsequently received several complaints, one of which, from a constituent, formed the basis of the commissioner's investigation.
	This is the first case investigated by the present commissioner to come before the House, though not before my Committee. I pay tribute to the care and thoroughness, exemplified by this case, with which he carries out his investigations, and to the clarity of his report, published as an appendix to ours.
	The commissioner concluded that my hon. Friend had claimed additional costs allowance in breach of the rules. He did not, however, find that the evidence available was sufficient to substantiate the conclusion that my hon. Friend had deliberately set out to abuse the allowance. He concluded that the evidence was certainly sufficient to justify the view that my hon. Friend was, at the least, careless or negligent in relation to the claims that he made. He also considered that it was clear that, in failing to observe the relevant rules, he had misused the allowance and consequently breached the code of conduct.
	The Committee agreed that my hon. Friend was not dishonest in his belief that he had the option to choose which of his places of residence to register as his main residence for the purpose of the additional costs allowance. We recognised, as did the commissioner, that since the matter came to light my hon. Friend had co-operated fully with all the inquiries and promptly repaid the sum he was told he owed the Department. However, my hon. Friend should have recognised that his claiming additional costs allowance in relation to his Windsor home meant that the taxpayer was meeting some of the core running costs of what was in reality his main residence. He should have realised that it was wrong to sign a certificate giving the home of his friend in London as his main residence, when he was staying there infrequently. Accordingly, the Committee agreed with the commissioner that my hon. Friend was negligent, and had breached the code of conduct by making improper use of the additional costs allowance and failing strictly to observe the rules relating to the allowance.
	The Committee considered very carefully what would be an appropriate penalty to recommend to the House. The consequences for my hon. Friend of what he conceded in his evidence to us was
	"a mistake, a serious mistake",
	have already been severe, in bringing to an end his parliamentary career. However, we must recognise the impact of cases of improper use of allowances on public confidence in Members of Parliament and in Parliament as an institution. Of course, the sum involved in this case was very substantial.
	The code of conduct requires Members to observe the highest standards in relation to payments or allowances made to them for public purposes, and Members are personally responsible for both the accuracy and the validity of their claims. Having weighed all these considerations, we recommended that my hon. Friend be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks.

David Winnick: I do not want to speak about the hon. Member in question, but the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks prompted me to table questions regarding the manner in which the Fees Office does or does not check submissions for the additional costs allowance. Is it not important that Members of Parliament submit documentary evidence, as in any other job? The present arrangements are loose and unsatisfactory, and do no credit to the House.

George Young: I should like to respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying a final word about the system to which he refers.
	We are guardians of the public purse, as well as of parliamentary standards. We were concerned that more than £90,000 had been incorrectly claimed, and that this matter did not come to light through the normal system of scrutiny. We therefore welcomed the steps that are being taken to strengthen confidence in the system for claiming additional costs allowance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins us in that view. We recommend that these steps be completed as quickly as possible and that they then be brought to the attention of all hon. Members. That would usefully complement the increased emphasis that we wish to place on education and prevention.
	We believe that, whatever the precise solutions adopted, public confidence in Members requires that the standards that the House imposes on itself be no less effective than those that it would expect of others responsible for the expenditure of public money. Our recommendations to the House reflect that view.

Eric Forth: These are sad but necessary occasions. The House has rules, and it keeps them under review. The Committee has a difficult job to do, which on this occasion, as on all others, it has done conscientiously, fairly and impartially.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, apologised to the House promptly and fully for what he did, and has taken the appropriate action. It is now for the House to agree with what the Committee said and bring this matter to a conclusion.

Mark Oaten: I do not wish to detain the House on this issue. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) has made an apology, and there is a long-standing tradition that when an hon. Member does that, we accept it and draw a line. However, I wish to say a few words about the report, because hon. Members want speedy progress on the wider implications of its recommendations.
	The atmosphere surrounding the whole question of sleaze has improved considerably in recent years. The change of commissioner is welcome. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Committee, on the speed with which he handled the process and the way in which he did it. That has gone some way to restore confidence in Members of Parliament being able to regulate themselves. The jury remains out on that, but this is an important first step in showing that there can be confidence in the system that we have in the House.
	It is extremely important that the Government pick up particular recommendations speedily so that, come the new financial year on 1 April, the proposed changes to how Members submit their claims for allowances are in place, and that they are clear and simple, with clear guidance, and include the principle of receipts for large amounts.
	I also hope that the Leader of the House will agree to an early debate on the Committee's proposals, and those of the Wicks committee, which would strengthen some of the procedures for both the Committee's and the commissioner's activities. Those proposals include even stronger measures, and the sooner the House can debate them, the sooner we can build on the progress made so far on these issues.
	Finally, there are inconsistencies in the punishments that can be imposed on different forms of democratically elected representatives, such as councillors and Members of Parliament, across a range of different offices. The issue needs to be examined. In the past, local councillors could be surcharged and disqualified. When the House considers the recommendations of the Wicks report and the possibility of fining Members of Parliament, I urge the Leader of the House to remove the inconsistencies, so that similar punishments are available for all of us who hold elected office, at whatever level.

Robin Cook: It is generally accepted in the House that we should move quickly to resolve recommendations from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. That is why the Government changed the business for this week, so that we could consider its report urgently. I do not intend to detain the House with a lengthy speech.
	First, I thank the Committee for its work and for its expedition in producing the report very quickly. I also congratulate the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has done a very thorough, clear and lucid job, establishing all the facts in a commendably brief period. It is right to record that he had co-operation from the Member concerned.
	We fully accept the Committee's recommendation. We always do, and I hope that the House is about to endorse it unanimously. It is important that we show unity within the House in accepting recommendations that touch upon the integrity of the House and of every Member.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) questioned the adequacy of the supervision of claims for additional costs allowance. Earlier this week, I attended a meeting of the Speaker's advisory panel, at which we discussed that matter. I understand that proposals will shortly come from the Fees Office to tighten up the system, especially, as regards the reference in the letter from Mr. Archie Cameron that was produced in the commissioner's report to the House, a requirement that Members should specify on their claim form the address of the property for which they are claiming. That could have prevented the difficulty that arose in this case. That might also apply to another of the commissioner's comments on that letter in relation to documentary corroboration of the finance for which the Member had claimed. Both would be welcome and necessary steps for tightening the system and I am confident that they will achieve substantial support in the House.

David Winnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning my previous intervention.
	As I have said outside this place, I work on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House are perfectly honest, but would not it be helpful if documentary evidence were provided for any claim above £10, £15 or £20? If we were claiming for electricity or telephone bills and the bills were not enclosed, the Fees Office could ask the Member concerned to send on the documentary evidence. Would that be wrong?

Robin Cook: All those matters are for consideration, but perhaps I could focus on the major issue—the one that has prompted the report: the claim for mortgage interest payments, which is by far the largest claim under the additional costs allowance. It would be desirable if, as standard practice, documentary evidence of mortgage interest paid in the course of the year or the month was supplied in support of the additional costs allowance. That would certainly have met this particular case and would, I suspect, cover a very high proportion of all claims under the additional costs allowance.

Michael Weir: As a new Member, I do not want to say too much about this matter, but I was struck by the fact that when I rented a flat in London the Fees Office was unwilling to make the payments direct to the letting agent so as to avoid them going through my hands at all, yet it will do so for office costs. That seems inconsistent, yet it could be a way to avoid situations such as that which we are discussing.

Robin Cook: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If we were to put that obligation on the Fees Office, we should have to face the staffing consequences, which might not be inconsiderable. Traditionally, we have approached such allowances on the basis that Members themselves are responsible and that they must also accept accountability for whatever they have instructed payment to be made. Furthermore, Members choose to resolve their accommodation in a variety of ways, including hotels, and it is entirely right for them to make those decisions. I am not sure that it would necessarily be consistent with that individual freedom to choose if there were a centralised payment system.

Kevin McNamara: I take the point that my right hon. Friend has just made, but surely the Fees Office could make the payment if a Member opts for it to do so. He will recall the fights that occurred in the past even to get the Fees Office to pay our secretaries their salaries direct, without them having first to go through our personal accounts. Direct payment would be a much better way and overcome a major part of the problem.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend tempts me to follow him in reminiscing about the situation in the 1970s, which would, I suspect, appal some new Members who are accustomed to the rather different secretarial and office cost allowances that prevail nowadays. All those things can be improved and no particular suggestion is being ruled out, but it is important to ensure that we tighten the system. That is in hand and meetings have already taken place to discuss what should be done and hon. Members will shortly receive further advice.
	I am conscious that the House wants to progress to the substantive matters of the day so, finally, I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about the report of the Wicks committee. The House will be aware that both the House of Commons Commission and the Standards and Privileges Committee published responses to the Wicks report. I fully understand the importance of discussing those reports in the House and we will ensure that there will be a debate on them before the House rises for the Easter recess. I hope that the House can broadly endorse the recommendations.
	I was gratified that the Wicks committee report, which was comprehensive, did not find that we needed to do much that was fundamental to our system for integrity and for maintaining our standards. However, where it has made useful suggestions for improvement, we should consider them with a fair wind to ensure that we convince not only the Wicks committee but the wider public whom we serve that all possible improvements are made to our system of integrity and enforcement of standards, which is so important to the health of democracy in our country.
	Question put and agreed to.

Social Security

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we debate the first of the two motions, I remind the House that the two orders to be considered this afternoon, on social security benefits uprating and on guaranteed minimum pensions increase, are to be debated separately for up to one and a half hours each. Debate should therefore relate to the merits of each order and should not extend to wider matters of social security or pensions policy.

Andrew Smith: I beg to move,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
	I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
	The order will uprate most benefits in the normal way. National insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index—1.7 per cent for the relevant period—and income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index, 1.3 per cent. They add up to about £2.25 billion of extra Government spending to help those in most need and to tackle poverty.
	This year, as in every year since 1998, we are able to increase some benefits by more than inflation. That contrasts starkly with the 1980s and 1990s, when child benefit was frozen for three years and pensioners received only inflation level increases, even as social security spending spiralled out of control.
	In 1997, we said that we would cut the costs of social and economic failure, and we have done so. Despite a turbulent world economy, the latest unemployment figures show a record number of people in jobs and the lowest unemployment rate of the major industrialised countries. Through our investment in the new deal and Jobcentre Plus we have tackled the legacy of mass unemployment that we inherited. Since 1997 there have been nearly 1.5 million more jobs, with savings of £5 billion on the cost of unemployment that can be invested in improving services and tackling poverty.

Steve Webb: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that national insurance benefits had been increased at least in line with inflation. He will know, however, that there is one national insurance benefit for which that is not true—contributory jobseeker's allowance. For some reason, it was raised not by headline inflation but by the Rossi index—1.3 per cent. and not 1.7 per cent.—so it is a real-terms cut in a benefit that, at £50 a week, is already low. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister who responds to the debate explain why that benefit has been cut in real terms by being linked to Rossi, when normally national insurance benefits are linked to the all-items retail prices index?

Andrew Smith: I could hazard an answer now, but it will probably be best if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions responds in the wind up.
	My general case is valid: we have increased benefits according to the normal indices and, indeed, we have been able to go beyond that due to our success in tackling mass unemployment. As a result of savings from tackling benefit fraud, we are able to ensure that more money is available to invest in services, providing extra help where it is needed and enabling more people to fulfil their potential, as well as, of course, tackling poverty. We have reversed the generation-long trend of rising child poverty. We have reduced by a third the number of families living on less than £10,000 per year and we are getting more money to pensioners than ever before.
	Our strategy has been to tackle the root causes of poverty and to ensure that families and pensioners have a decent income and that people of working age are better off in work. We are doing more to help families. Last year, we raised the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay by a record amount to £75. This year we shall go even further, increasing it by a third to £100 a week.
	At the same time, we are increasing the period for maternity leave to 26 weeks, with the option of a further 26 weeks unpaid, allowing women to take a year off work after having a baby. We will provide help not just for mothers but for fathers. We are introducing statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay at £100 a week, plus the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave and 26 weeks' paid adoption leave. That package of support will help 750,000 parents to support and care for their children.
	I can also announce further direct support for children. Child benefit will be increased by more than inflation for the third time by this Government, taking the cumulative real increase for the first child to £5 a week since 1997. In addition, all child allowances will be increased by more than inflation, benefiting some 1.3 million of the poorest families in our country. Under Labour, income support help for the poorest children has doubled.
	We know that it is particularly hard for low-income families who are bringing up children with disabilities, so I can announce today substantial rises in support. The disabled child premium will increase by more than 16 per cent. to £41.30—nearly double its 1997 rate—and there will be additional help for poorer families bringing up the most severely disabled children: the enhanced disability premium will increase by nearly a half.

Tim Boswell: The additional help being given to disabled children is welcome, but can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about any campaign, conducted by himself or in conjunction with the Treasury, to ensure that, as has been promised in the past, those new benefits are properly publicised to the families and parents of disabled children—particularly where those new benefits are linked to, or passported by, other benefits—so that they are drawn positively to their attention to ensure that the benefits get to those who need them?

Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the measures, and I am happy to give him the assurance that, yes, I am very concerned indeed that people should get the benefits to which they are entitled, and I will examine anything that has not been done in response to a campaign that it would make sense to do. It is in all our interests that people get what they are entitled to, especially when we are talking about disabled children.
	Together, the measures that we set out will help more than 87,000 families bringing up disabled children. Our tax and benefit measures, combined with our successful employment policies, are helping to get more parents into work, enabling us to make major inroads into child poverty.
	We also continue to tackle the legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited. For the third year running, the retirement pension will be uprated by more than inflation, with an increase of £100 a year from next April for single pensioners and £160 a year for couples. We will increase the basic state pension by at least 2.5 per cent. each year during the lifetime of this Parliament, reaffirming the basic state pension as the foundation of security in retirement.
	We will, as in every year since its introduction, increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, giving more help to the poorest pensioners. Indeed, as a result of that measure alone, the incomes of the poorest pensioners will have gone up by over a third since 1997. In conjunction with the winter fuel payments and free television licences, we are already spending £6 billion extra in real terms on pensioners this year.

Paul Flynn: The Government are to be congratulated on their policy on pensioners, which has delivered an increase that is probably greater than any increase that would have been made if the link to earnings had been restored, but is it not true that many of the poorest pensioners are not claiming income support for various reasons? We should be considering those people, of whom there is a very large number. For reasons of pride or because of a disorganised life, or whatever, they are losing out, as their incomes are well below the minimum income guarantee level.

Andrew Smith: I agree that very many of the poorest pensioners are benefiting by more than a restoration of the earnings link would have given them, so I would not accept that they are especially losing out. Of course, it remains a challenge to increase take-up to the level that we would like, and creating a dedicated Pension Service will be a big help.
	The Pension Service is more effectively organised to be sensitive to pensioners, as it has a local arm, and I am sure that all hon. Members are beginning to see the benefits in their constituencies of the local surgeries that are being organised. I am glad to see that some Conservative Members are nodding.
	Getting such entitlements through the Pension Service is a very good way of tackling the stigma that many people have felt, wrongly, in getting something from social security. The more clearly we bracket those entitlements with the pension and as things that come through the Pension Service, the more we will encourage take-up.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that, in my constituency, more than 3,000 people have applied for the minimum income guarantee—calling it something different has made a big difference. As he will know, couples now get £150 a week, plus all the other benefits, whereas if the Tory link had continued they would now get £105 a week. That is a massive difference.

Andrew Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am very pleased to hear that our measures are making a difference to poorer pensioners in his constituency, as they are across the country.
	I shall try to speed up my remarks because I am aware that the debate is more truncated than some hon. Members would wish and that a number of hon. Members want to take part.
	In addition to the extra spending that I have already announced, we will go further. From this October, the pension credit will not only guarantee a minimum income but reward those with modest savings and occupational pension incomes, providing, we estimate, an average gain of about £400 a year for half the pensioner households in Britain. Thanks to all our reforms, pensioner households will be more than £1,150 a year better off as a result, and the poorest third of pensioners will have gained £1,500 a year in real terms.

Andrew Selous: Although the Secretary of State has just said that take-up is supposed to be better with the Pension Service, is he not concerned by the predictions from his Department that the take-up of pension credit is expected to be only 67 per cent.?

Andrew Smith: I have said already that I am concerned that the take-up of the help to which people are entitled should be as high as possible. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not a prediction; it is an operating assumption. We have to plan the expenditure using an assumption. However, if he is asking whether I am aiming for that target, the answer is that I am not—I want to ensure that take-up is as high as possible.
	I shall write to all right hon. and hon. Members next month to set out our plans to ensure that people take up the pension credit to which they are entitled. We will automatically transfer current MIG recipients on to the pension credit, establish a freephone number for applications and launch an information campaign. For the first time, people will be able to make claims over the phone without having to fill in complicated forms—that will be done for them. The forms will be sent to them, and all they need to do is sign them—so we are simplifying the process.
	Those measures, combined with the state second pension, which will benefit some 18 million people, will help all pensioners. We are making a real difference to the living standards of all pensioners, but those measures will help the poorest pensioners most of all.

Hywel Williams: I am slightly concerned that the Secretary of State seems to have jumped several generations, from talking about poverty among children to pensioners. Does he intend to address the income support available to younger people—those under 25—who are very clearly in poverty? I note from the table provided that the increase will be a whole 55p this year. Does he suggest that they perhaps buy a weekday copy of The Guardian with that money, as that is all they could manage to do with it?

Andrew Smith: I would not attempt to prescribe what people should spend their benefits on. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about people's needs. As I said, the amounts are being uprated in the proper way and, as he will be aware, the Government have made a big drive to give more help to disabled people. We have advanced their rights in an unprecedented way by creating the Disability Rights Commission. Moreover, we have not only improved benefits in the way that I have already outlined but launched pilot schemes that will help would-be recipients of incapacity benefit to stay in work or move into jobs. We should never forget that up to 1 million disabled people say that they want to work, and too many barriers are in the way of that at the moment. This Government want to remove those barriers and enable disabled people to work, while at the same time providing security for those who are unable to work.
	In drawing my remarks to a close, it is evident that the measures that I have described will benefit a large number of children, parents and pensioners. They carry forward our reform of the welfare state and our mission to tackle all forms of poverty. Through policy reform, getting record numbers into jobs and tackling fraud, we are able to target extra resources on children and pensioners who need help most. This order helps us to build a Britain that fulfils potential, opens up opportunity and tackles poverty, and I commend it to the House.

David Willetts: We will not oppose the order, and we will certainly not make the mistake famously made by the Liberal Democrats a couple of years ago of trying to vote against any increase in benefits. That was almost as much of a cock-up as the one that we have had today, which means that we cannot have this debate on the scale for which Members on both sides of the House would have wished. Sadly, the uprating debate has shrunk from a full day to three hours. It is a great pity that we have only an hour and a half on this order. I appreciate that that was an accident, but I hope that we will revert to the old arrangements in future.
	As we now have less time than we had hoped, I will have to set aside my extensive indictment of the Government's record on social security, powerful and compelling though the evidence was. I am sure that it will be recycled on another occasion. Instead, I shall make some brief remarks.
	First, this is a melancholy occasion, as this uprating order marks the disappearance of a range of benefits from the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions as they become tax credits to be run by the Treasury. We understand that Whitehall's arrangements are always being changed, but this change may result in a poorer quality of policy making and decision making. In so far as there is accumulated expertise anywhere in Whitehall on the needs of poor people and how to run their benefits, it lies within the old Department of Social Security, which is now the DWP. I am surprised that Labour Members do not appear to agree with that, as it seems clear to me that the Inland Revenue rightly focuses on extracting income tax from the better-off. The idea that the Inland Revenue should send out giro cheques to millions of people, which will start in April, seems absurd.
	We are told that the new arrangements will be seamless, but the reality is that an unemployed family will receive a child tax credit from the Inland Revenue to cover the costs of their children, while separately receiving from the DWP an unemployment benefit payment for the adult. That seems a far clumsier system than the one that it replaces. I hope that the two different Departments will co-ordinate their approach to one family, but it is a significant risk. As one Blairite adviser observed to me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not believe in contestability when it comes to health or education, but he certainly does when it comes to benefit systems, as we will now have two. I hope that the two systems can work successfully.
	In the background to today's uprating is yet more means-testing. The benefits that we are uprating include further extensions of means-tested benefits as a proportion of the total social security budget. Rather than quote to the Secretary of State yet again the notorious commitment by the Chancellor to the Labour party conference 10 years ago to end the means test, I might go back further to an episode described in Alan Bullock's biography of Ernest Bevin, in which Bevin tried to persuade the tinplate workers of south Wales—[Interruption.] I knew that the Minister for Pensions would be interested when I mentioned Ernest Bevin. He tried to persuade those tinplate workers to join an occupational pension. He negotiated it with the employers, but his members rejected it. Bevin went to his council of the T&G in 1937 and said the following:
	"I think it is a tragedy for south Wales, but it appears that a large number of the men take the view that if they become party to a superannuation they are merely saving the Unemployment Assistance Board expenditure. When a large community develops a relief complex of this character it is not good for democracy."
	He found that the scope of means-testing was such that he could not encourage his own members to build up funded pension saving. That is a powerful warning of the long-term effects of means-testing on its current scale.

James Purnell: As the hon. Gentleman is taking us on a trip down memory lane, will he confirm that he was an adviser on social security policy through almost the whole of the Thatcher Government? Does he therefore regret that they froze child benefit and froze pensions in real terms, and that the income of the bottom 10 per cent. of people fell in absolute terms—not in relative terms—by about 20 per cent.?

David Willetts: We always have this exchange. I do not recognise the figure of a 20 per cent. fall in the real incomes of the poorest part of the population. I simply do not accept that.
	What I want to talk about is what this Government are doing in uprating benefits. The problem of means-testing is not just its effects on behaviour but the problems of take-up to which reference has been made. It is a great disappointment that we still have no take-up figures for income-related benefits for any year later than 1999–2000. They should have been published at the latest by last September, when we were suddenly told that they could not be released until research had been concluded on how to
	"better identify people who are eligible for income-related benefits, especially pensioners." —[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 645W.]
	There is no reason why that research should delay the production of empirical evidence about the take-up of means-tested benefits. Nearly three years have passed since the period for which we require data, and the House would not be demanding unseemly haste of the Secretary of State in producing reliable figures for the take-up of means-tested benefits in 2000–01. The fact that we do not have figures for later than 1999–2000 is a disgrace.

Steve Webb: Given that the Secretary of State said that next month he will announce a package of measures to improve take-up of pensioner benefits, is it a coincidence that the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks are due to be published at the end of next month? Does he share my suspicion that the figures may not be very good?

David Willetts: My suspicions are that the Secretary of State is waiting for something to sugar the pill of some figures that might show, sadly, that take-up is far lower than all of us, on both sides of the House, would want.
	There is a lot of change going on, and it is a pity that we do not have a longer debate in which to examine it. Briefly, in relation to some of the changes in social security benefits that we are about to see as part of this uprating order, I hope that the wind-up will provide a little more information on three points. First, on the new arrangements for the payment of benefit coming into force in April, there are widespread concerns about the post office card account. Ministers have regularly offered assurances that, as a very minimum, information will be given on all forms of benefit payment—not just on commercial bank accounts but on the post office card account. People should therefore have a choice, including the possibility of continuing to collect their benefits at the post office through the post office card account. I want to quote from a letter, however, which was sent to someone living near my constituency, who has passed it on to me. That person is in receipt of child benefit. The letter, which is from the child benefit centre in Washington, simply states:
	"It has been decided to withdraw your order book method of payment for child benefit. Future payments will be made into a bank/building society. Please complete the enclosed form CH1702 with your bank/building society account details."
	That is not compatible with the assurances that we have been given on the provision of information on post office card accounts to benefit claimants. The memorandum from the child benefit centre does not meet earlier ministerial assurances. I shall not detain the House by repeating those assurances, but the Secretary of State knows that they were given, and what is going on now is not compatible with them.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the script that the new Pension Service will use mentions the post office card account hardly at all and only at the very end, a fact that I and the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), who is in the Chamber, duly noted when we visited the Pension Service centre in Burnley? Does my hon. Friend agree that that will cause great difficulties for many post offices, which will be forced to close as a result of losing that income?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear from the way in which leaflets are produced in post offices, the letter from the child benefit centre and the script that followed that Ministers are not delivering on the assurances that they gave on information about the post office card account. I hope that the Minister will cover that in his winding-up speech.
	On the arrival of the Pension Service, I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say that local meetings are taking place to give people practical advice. As a Member of Parliament who represents Havant on the south coast, I have received a letter saying that the Pension Service office in Wrexham will handle pension issues for my constituency. Apparently, I should write to it there and my constituents can phone it. I am not aware of any improvements in local advice; nor am I aware of the delivery of the promised face-to-face interviews.
	There have been exchanges in the Select Committee on that and I also had an exchange on the television last year with the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who was introduced as a Government aide. As the Government's representative, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) said:
	"We have guaranteed that any pensioner who wants a face-to-face interview can have that and we're actually doubling the number of staff at the moment who have that face to face, the new Pension Service will have twice as many."
	I hope that the Minister will repeat the assurance that his Parliamentary Private Secretary gave, so that we can guarantee that any pensioner who wants a face-to-face interview can have one. We realise that that does not mean every pensioner, because many will not want a face-to-face interview, but the interview should be available for those who want one.
	We all know that the evidence given by the head of the Pension Service to the Select Committee and elsewhere is not compatible with the assurances, including those given by the hon. Member for Wigan. The head of the Pension Service said:
	"We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit"
	She also stated:
	"The local service is not designed to be a 'visiting on demand' service and we would expect such occasions to be rare."
	Are we, or are we not, able to assure our constituents who want a face-to-face meeting that they will get one with someone who has the authority and expertise to give them proper advice?
	I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief—[Interruption.] Are Labour Members telling me to keep going? Is that because my contribution is so compelling? I do not know how many hon. Members wish to speak—

Oliver Heald: I do.

David Willetts: My distinguished hon. Friend has much wisdom on the subject and I am sure that he will wind up with great skill.
	On the Child Support Agency and the conversion of old cases to the new formula, on which we heard a statement some time ago, when is C-day, as it is called, and what are the arrangements? I am sure that all MPs are receiving inquiries from their constituents who are concerned to know when and how they are to be moved to the new formula. Advice that can be given on a more authoritative basis would be welcome.
	I hope that the Minister will tackle those specific concerns and say a bit about the philosophy of a Government who are supposedly committed to welfare reform but who have, after six years in office, ended up with a situation in which well over half the British population are on means-tested benefits. The number of people on income support is higher than it was when they came to office, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit is higher than it was when they came to office and the household savings ratio is almost at a record low. That is not the society that we want. We want more funded savings and people to be less dependent on means-tested benefits. It is a tragedy that we are heading in the opposite direction.

Vernon Coaker: I want to raise two or three specific concerns that my constituents have brought to my attention. The order is exceptionally important, given that it accounts for billions of pounds on which many people depend. We need more than an hour and a half to consider such matters, because they are of fundamental importance to a huge number of people. Indeed, they affect thousands of people in every constituency.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I am keen to ensure that benefits paid by post office accounts are made properly available to people. A number of my constituents have raised the problems that they have encountered on trying to open such an account. They have almost been persuaded not to have one. Sub-postmasters have also mentioned that problem to me. Post offices throughout the country need to operate on a level playing field so that people have a proper choice when they decide how their benefits should be paid.

Andrew Selous: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office official to whom I recently spoke said that post offices stand to lose 41 per cent. of their income through the automated credit transfer process?

Vernon Coaker: I do not want to get into a debate about that. It is necessary for the Post Office to modernise. The Government's investment in computerisation, for instance, is welcome. Post offices need to diversify to build up other aspects of retailing and so on. However, alongside that modernisation, we need to accept that post offices cannot continue to be subsidised by the state to pay out benefits. In the process of change, people need to have a choice about how they want their benefits to be paid. That is the sensible approach and I hope that the Government take it.
	The Minister knows that I am keen supporter of the pensioner premium part of income support. Although it was unpopular at the time, it has redirected huge resources to the poorest pensioners in society. As a Labour Government, we decided to do that rather than to uprate all pensions because that would have allowed all pensioners to receive an additional sum even if they did not need it. We chose to ensure that the poorest pensioners received significant increases in their income. Many pensioners in my constituency have received that significant increase and it has made a huge difference to their quality of life and standard of living. The Government are to be congratulated on that and I was pleased to defend their policy when that was not a popular thing to do. We can be proud of the outcome.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about take-up. We need a bit more information from the Department about what is happening with that. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions provide any further information, and say how successful or otherwise we are? I support the policy, but I know that some people who are entitled to the benefit are not able to claim it or are not aware of their entitlement. We need to continue to consider how we ensure that those people are made aware of their entitlement.

Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the Labour Government's successes in dealing with pensioner poverty. How does that square with the fact that in Scotland one in four pensioners are still living in poverty, after nearly six years of a Labour Government?

Vernon Coaker: I was pointing to the fact we have made the decision to shift a significant amount of resources to the poorest group of pensioners through the pensioner premium in income support, which was an unpopular decision opposed by many in the House. However, we rode out that opposition because we wanted to introduce the change. Other measures have also been introduced, including the winter fuel payment. The Government have tried to address problems, but take-up is still an issue. When I talk to pensioners in my constituency, they are still confused about their entitlement and the forms to be filled in. We must continue to try to find ways of dealing with that, perhaps through the Pension Service.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Pensions Policy Institute paper that was published recently, but it shows that the income of pensioners as a percentage of national earnings is exactly the same now as it was in 1997. In fact, the gap between rich and poor has widened.

Vernon Coaker: I have not read that document, but if the hon. Gentleman talks to pensioners or looks at what is taking place, he will see that significant additional resources are going to poorer pensioners through the pensioner premium in income support. I supported that policy decision when the Government made it, and I still do.
	As I said earlier, I support very much the Government's welfare to work programme, and I believe we should all do so. The best way out of poverty is for people to be supported into work. The Government have introduced a number of successful measures to deal with that. They have targeted improvements on various benefits. The Secretary of State mentioned child benefit, in which there have been incredible increases, especially in respect of the first child, making a significant difference. My right hon. Friend also talked about changes to the disability premium—we all support those welcome improvements.
	Flicking through the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003, one can see that it applies to hundreds of different benefits. A heart-rending, soul-searching parliamentary debate about whether some of those benefits are set at an appropriate level is long overdue. Some of the people I see are dependent on benefits and cannot work, for whatever reason. Sometimes I wonder how they can exist on the money that they receive. That is not so much a criticism as a plea for reflection. Can we pay benefits at a level that does not encourage people to stay on benefit, support a welfare- to-work policy, pursue an anti-poverty agenda, and command public support so that we are not criticised for making benefits too generous? The House and the country need to consider the serious question of whether the poverty line in our benefits system is appropriate. Are we being generous in our definition of poverty? Recently, the journalist Polly Toynbee lived on benefits. She could be ridiculed, as she knew that she would come off benefits and go back to her own world, but her experiences do provide an insight into poverty. She was moved by how little people who depend solely on benefits receive to support themselves. The House ought to have a debate on what is an appropriate poverty line in this country in the 21st century.
	Finally, whatever the benefit, huge numbers of people come to our surgeries because they have difficulty finding their way through the forms and claiming their entitlement. Whatever system is set up, that is bound to be the case. It is therefore incumbent on us to ask ourselves whether the system is as good or simple as it could be, and what is the way forward. I welcome the Secretary of State's speech, which included good things about the disability premium. I congratulate the Government on that, but ask my right hon. Friend to take on board some of my remarks to see whether further improvements could be made, especially to take-up, which would help us to make our benefits system better still.

Steve Webb: It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), whose contributions are thoughtful and gratifyingly critical of the Government—in a supportive sort of way.
	It is hard not to reflect on the fact that, in debating the order and tax credits, we are debating expenditure of £100 billion in 90 minutes, which is about £1 billion a minute. I appreciate that the circumstances in which that time limit was set are beyond our control, but will the Secretary of State make representations through the usual channels to find an alternative occasion, perhaps in Westminster Hall, so that we can have the debate that we might otherwise have had here? There are many wider issues that it is not in order to raise in relation to the motion. However, they do need to be addressed, and there is not an obvious forum in which to do so. I hope that the Minister for Pensions will provide an assurance that he will seek such a debate.
	I shall not make some important points that I might otherwise have made. Comments by Members on both sides of the House about the move to automated credit transfer are important, and I should like to see a campaign of civil disobedience by pensioners up and down the land, and the ceremonial burning of letters from the Pension Service saying that they cannot receive their money in the way in which they used to receive it until there are cast-iron assurances about the post office network that, frankly, I do not believe will ever be forthcoming.
	I shall not repeat my intervention on the Secretary of State about the level of the contributory jobseeker's allowance, but I hope that when the Minister responds he will explain why that benefit has been cut in real terms. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned, it is a woefully small increase to a woefully small benefit. Perhaps the Minister can explain why people on contributory jobseeker's allowance who have paid contributions will experience a real-terms cut in April.
	There are three topics that I would have liked to deal with at greater length, but I shall now merely headline them. First, we have previously visited the 25p age addition in the orders. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State because, unlike the previous Secretary of State, they are willing to engage in the argument about whether age additions are a better strategy than means-testing. The previous Secretary of State simply did not engage in that argument, but written answers that I have recently received from the Minister have set out the Department's line, which was previously given only in the Lords, where these things are debated properly. I thank the Minister for editorialising his recent written answer to me, explaining the facts of the case and why I am wrong. That is a step in the right direction.
	On the strategy of age additions, instead of the 25p in the orders, it should be a worthwhile sum. The Government line is that older pensioners may be poorer on average, but there is a big dispersion of incomes among older pensioners, which is clearly true. They take the top and the bottom of the distribution as evidence, and say that there is a big gap between those two numbers, but that is only saying that there are some relatively rich old pensioners, which I do not dispute. The Government do not report in their written answers to me the shape of the whole distribution. At the top, there is a minority of well-off pensioners, but most of the distribution is quite low, with a sharp increase at the end. Therefore, although some of the money does not go to those who need it most, much of the money goes to those who miss out under the Government strategy.
	Neither strategy is perfect. Under our strategy, which I think is also the Conservative strategy and that of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), we pay some money to the rich very elderly, but most of it goes to the relatively poor very elderly. Under the Government strategy, all the money goes to those who claim it who are by definition poor, but they miss out on a lot of very poor people, who do not get it at all.
	The matter is not as clear cut as the Government like to pretend it is. Given that with the pension credit the presumption is 2.9 million recipient households out of 4.1 million entitled households—Government figures, not mine—that is a million who will not get a penny under the Government strategy, and probably two thirds of them would get all the money under the age addition strategy. I hope that the Government, particularly when they review wider pensions issues, will reflect on the 25p figure in the order and whether the reliance on means-testing can be reduced through an age addition strategy. I have never said that there is no place for means-testing; it is a question of balance.

Andrew Smith: In the interests of open debate on distributional issues, which the hon. Gentleman says he welcomes, does he accept that the cost of his strategy is not only that some older rich pensioners get money that they arguably do not need so much, but that younger poorer pensioners do not get money that they do need?

Steve Webb: I accept that. However, the younger poorer pensioners below the income support line are typically not very far below the income support line, whereas the old poor pensioners who fail to claim their minimum income guarantee are typically a good deal further below the line. The recently retired generally tend to be better off. I accept that there are pros and cons to each strategy, but the distinctions are not nearly as clear cut as the Government like to pretend.
	As an example, a recent written answer to me from the Minister of State stated that the pension credit was going ahead, but had the Government decided at the start of the year to put the whole net cost of the pension credit on the pension for the over-75s, the pension for the over-75s would have been £19 a week bigger. That was the sum cited in the Minister's written answer to me of 25 February. That is close to the MIG, so the question is whether, had we not followed that strategy, for the same expenditure we could have got everybody over 75 clear of the MIG, with vast gains in take-up and in administrative saving. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on the issue.
	As a final observation on the age addition issue, I note that the same Government who say that targeting by age is a bad idea because there are some rich old people have chosen to make TV licences free to all the over-75s. When the Chancellor announced that measure in his Budget speech, he justified it by saying that on average older pensioners are poorer. The Government cannot have it both ways, although they may try; there must be some consistency in their reasoning.
	The second issue is the increase of £1.95 a week in the retirement pension, for which the regulations provide. That is £1.95 a week for people on full pensions. I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State women who do not get £1.95 a week increase—they do not get £1.95 a week pension, because of the operation of the married women's stamp. I have invited the Secretary of State—I hope that he will respond to me shortly, though probably not today—to have an independent look at the position of those women who do not get the £1.95 under the regulations.
	I want to put on record the way in which our thinking about the matter has moved on. In the past we have said that those women signed up for the system, but we dispute whether all of them knew what they were doing and whether they had proper information. The Government's line—or some parts of the Government's line—is, yes, the women knew what they were doing and it was all crystal clear, whereas Lord Rooker, when he was a pensions Minister, said that none of the information would have passed the plain English test. There has been some admission in the past that there was a problem.
	I still believe that there was a problem, but we will never resolve it because the events took place a long time ago. Our argument now emphasises the fact that there was not a one-off decision by those women. It was an ongoing decision for the whole of their lives to remain on the married women's stamp. What might have been a correct decision when they made it may have become a wrong decision when the half-tests were scrapped, which the Secretary of State knows all about, the homes responsibilities protection was introduced, and the national insurance for the low paid was restructured. All those measures changed the balance of advantage of being on the reduced stamp as opposed to being on the full stamp.
	The issue that we have not explored properly, which an independent inquiry could investigate with no prejudice and no obligation, is whether women knew about that, whether they had information, and whether they lost out through not being told about the changes. It ceases to be an argument about what happened in the 1960s and becomes an argument about whether women were told about the changes in the system that affected their choices and now affect the benefits that they draw when they retire.
	The issue is not just a Lib-Dem whinge. We have tabled early-day motion 131 and the majority of signatories are Labour MPs—76 Labour Members have signed the motion. It is regrettable that the Conservatives have put a block on their Members signing, but 13 free-thinkers on the Conservative Back Benches have done so anyway. I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the matter. I stress that apart from 1 million stamps, virtually no public expenditure would be involved, so he would not be making a public expenditure commitment. It is a matter that unites hon. Members across the House.
	I do not say that I have an angry woman in every constituency, but something approaching that. [Interruption.] Yes, we are working on it. There are members of our campaign organisation in more than 400 constituencies, and they have met hon. Members. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have signed the early-day motion. Let us not make it a party matter. I welcome the support from all parts of the House. Let us have an independent look at the issue. I hope that the Secretary of State will respond positively.
	The final issue is the complexity of the system, which has been touched on. I am a regular subscriber to the Child Poverty Action Group's handbook on welfare benefits, which runs to 1,300 pages. I received a rather worrying letter recently, inviting me to buy next year's edition, which will include the tax credits, and informing me that it will include an extra 300 or 500 pages—I do not remember which. The letter assured me that the handbook would not take up any extra space on my bookshelf because it would be printed on Bible paper. In other words, the system is so complicated that next year another 300 or 500 pages will be added to the guide to help people through it, and the guide is only a summary—it does not go into the law in any detail.
	When the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) commented on the complexity of the system, I expected him to say that radical simplification is needed. I agree that we need to consider what would be adequate, but surely we are going down the wrong track.

David Willetts: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the extra complexity that will be added by the move to tax credits. Will he confirm that, in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue said that the computer power needed to deliver the tax credit proposals was eight times that needed for self-assessment, and that the PAC has shown that the simple cost of the IT and administrative expenditure to install the new system is well over £1 billion? That is money that could have gone in benefits delivered by well-established systems. Instead, it is being spent on inventing a parallel system that will leave many of our constituents more confused than they are already.

Steve Webb: Yes. I am aware of tax accountants who do tax every day, but when faced with a benefit form are bewildered by the entire process. However, we must come clean. We all voted for the Tax Credits Act 2002, so we all supported the principle. We have considerable reservations about its complexity and we may well have to revisit it. In admitting that, we should accept that there is great complexity in all the benefits. For example—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the uprating of the benefits.

Steve Webb: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a specific example involving income support and the rates being introduced this April. A constituent who came to speak to me about another matter had a letter from his local Jobcentre Plus about the rates of income support that he will get in April. I have a question about the order, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
	The letter tells my constituent how much income support he will get now, and goes on to inform him that on 1 April he will get £8.40 because a change in child benefit is coming in. On 8 April he will get £11.77 a week because of a change in the money that he receives through other benefits. On 15 April he will get £11.50 a week because of a change to the severe disability allowance that his partner gets. On 29 April he will get £11.27 because there will be a change to the child benefit that his partner receives. That is four changes in a month.
	I read the regulations last night, and it appears that not all the changes come in on the same day. Given that income support depends on all the other benefits that people are getting, my constituent will get four different rates of benefit and does not have a clue why. Can the Minister of State explain why the changes are being introduced on different days during April, and how many extra letters have to be sent out to tell people that for a week they will receive a different amount of money? That is symptomatic of the complexity of the whole approach.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman recalls the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2003 that we discussed recently in Committee. Does he agree that if we take account of the knock-on effects of the changes in this order and the complexity of the system on matters such as child support and benefit sanctions, we will end up facing an absolute empire?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, we are going rather wide of the motion.

Steve Webb: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall wrap up my remarks, but I hope that I will receive some idea as to why the rates are changing on different dates in April and get some sense that the Government recognise that producing telephone directories of regulations and benefits is not the right approach to take.
	The fact that we have not got proper time to debate the motion is the result of a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. I hope that we shall receive an assurance that we will have a chance to raise the wider issues that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite properly do not want us to consider now. However, the House should certainly have the time to consider them. Although we were right when we opposed similar regulations a few years ago, we will not oppose the motion today.

Tim Boswell: I shall be brief so as to leave time for a proper response. I appreciate the narrowness of the terms of this debate but I shall make a few brief points that have not already been well brought out in the earlier contributions.
	Can Ministers comment on the position of the increments to the retirement pension for those who have worked beyond their time or whose partners have worked beyond their time? There is a clear steer in the Green Paper that people should be encouraged to work beyond the statutory retirement age. However, as I understand it, there is still a disincentive—or apparent unevenness—in the treatment of the increments from the basic retirement pension because, to be fair to Ministers, they have been more generous with the basic pension. We need to establish the principle that the two elements should operate in parallel in the future.
	My second point relates to the disregard of pension income in connection with incapacity benefit. The system has now been in operation for nearly two years and kicks in at £85 a week. I believe that there has, as yet, been no indication of any uprating of that figure. Clearly circumstances and the amounts paid vary over time, and Ministers might like to clarify the position on that.
	My third point relates to work. We now have a new structure in which therapeutic work is deemed to have come to an end and there is now permitted work for a finite period. Beneath that, since the Social Security Act 1986 was implemented in 1988, there has always been the understanding that people who, for example, return to work after a period on benefit could work for a limited period and receive pay that would be disregarded. That initially kicked in at £15 a week but it is now £20 a week. If we relate that figure to the minimum wage, it is a morning's work and no more. However, there does not seem to be a change in the permitted level for any period of time and I flag up to the Minister that there is something of a black hole between the operation of that relief and the new permitted work regulations for people working more than 16 hours a week.
	A final anomaly relates to the achievement of both Houses and Ministers in relation to the pension credit. Hospital downrating rules were amended to 13 weeks instead of the much shorter period that was in force previously and that will remove much of the sting of the operation of those rules in relation to pension credit. However, I ask Ministers to reflect on some of the associated benefits that have not been so amended. In particular, I think of the attendance allowance for older people that kicks in to affect the benefits available to those who care for them.
	As I understand it, the attendance allowance is still withdrawn after four weeks in hospital. Therefore, although someone's pension credit is not deducted for a reasonable period when someone is in hospital—in fact, that person is likely to have left hospital—the last thing that he or she might think about is the attendance allowance. I flag up to Ministers a more general concern that results from the fact I have come across cases in my constituency work of the Department attempting to reclaim benefits that have been overpaid to people who are not fraudsters. Their behaviour may have been inadvertent or they may have been unwell, and problems might arise from that. I hope that Ministers will consider that issue, because the cost would be quite small in relation to the circumstances that I have mentioned. They could make a difference to smoothing the problem out.
	In the spirit of getting on with the debate, I shall make only one further point that relates to the delivery of the benefits. It does not matter how much they are uprated if they are not functionally available to the people who need them. Points have been raised about the operation of the post office card account and about the take-up of benefits. I agree with those points, but I add one of my own that was touched on slightly in the remarks of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). There needs to be a functional network of post offices in which benefits can be delivered. That applies even if that involves the use of basic bank accounts and more so if it involves the use of post office card accounts.
	A written answer that I received the other day suggested that 12 million payments are still made at post offices every week. One of the problems is that that number of payments proceeds in parallel with—and in certain cases is preceded by—the closure of urban post offices.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue for too long on that point.

Tim Boswell: He will not, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. He is making the point that it does not matter how good the benefits are if, for example, my constituents in Tamar square in Daventry, who handed me a petition the other day, find that the post office from which they were going to collect their benefit is no longer open and that the post office to which they are now assigned has queues of an hour at the time of its greatest use.

James Purnell: I shall make a few very brief points. The first relates to an issue that was considered in the Committee considering the State Pension Credit Act 2002. It involves the incomes disregard for the pension credit. I very much welcome the upratings that have been announced today, but we are trying to encourage older people to work at least until the age of 65 and perhaps beyond. Income starts to get clawed back if they earn only £5 to £10, and that figure may be too low. Have Ministers considered the position in Denmark? As I understand it, it is starting to disregard all income for those aged over its pension age. I can imagine that the expenditure implications may be high for this country, but is it not worth considering whether the disregard should be higher so that people can work beyond the age of 65 without losing too much of their pension credit?
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred to home responsibilities protection, so will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions consider a discussion that we had in Standing Committee last year? Perhaps he could reply today or in writing and tell me whether today's statement will deal with the fact that people who care for foster children do not receive home responsibilities protection because they do not receive child benefit. As a consequence, they do not receive credits towards their basic state pension. That leaves them without the security in old age that they require. I know that Ministers said last year that they would consider that point, but several people in my constituency have raised the issue with me. I have spoken recently to foster carers in my constituency and they told me that they did not realise that that would be the consequence of their caring for foster children. That might act as a genuine disincentive, so will my right hon. Friend say something about that today or in future weeks?
	I also want to return briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). He said that he did not recognise the figures that I had quoted. I have written to him to say that those figures are from the Office for National Statistics. I first saw them in Nick Timmins' biography of the welfare state. I wonder which figures the hon. Gentleman does not recognise. Does he agree with the Office for National Statistics, because most people would agree that it is a fairly reliable source of information even though he has a good record of exposing some of its inaccuracies? However, on this issue, it is a fairly reliable source, so does he not recognise the figures in the publication on households on below average income or those of the ONS? Does he think that the figures are wrong? I would be interested to hear him apply his forensic skill to the figures to learn whether they are correct.
	Means-testing underlies the Government's uprating announcement. The hon. Member for Havant and his colleague, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), spoke about the problems of means-testing. Means-testing is a way of targeting the benefits that the Government give out. If we do not target benefits, the current distribution of income will remain as it is. Under the Government of whom the hon. Member for Havant was a member and served so well from 1979 to 1992, the income of the poorest 20 per cent. fell by 30 times, in relative terms, the income of the top 20 per cent. According to the latest publication, under this Government, the income of the bottom 20 per cent. is rising at the same rate as that of the top 20 per cent. In today's economy, rewards for skills and education are growing exponentially.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the paper that was published very recently by the Pensions Policy Institute, but it shows that the gap between rich and poor is widening.

James Purnell: That point relates only to pensioners, if I am not mistaken. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the hon. Gentleman quoted figures to show that the value of pensions had stayed the same as a proportion of earnings. That is an achievement when compared with the Conservative Government's record. Under that Government, the amount fell, because the pension was tied to inflation. As earnings rise faster than inflation, this Government have managed to restore the overall amount of money that has been put into benefits and pensions. We are increasing it in line with earnings and in line with the overall economy—and we are targeting money at the poorest people. That is a significant improvement on the Conservative Government. Opposition Members may wish to acknowledge that; they may even wish to apologise.
	At his party's most recent conference, the hon. Member for Havant said that his party had made some mistakes during its time in power. I wonder whether he thinks that it made some mistakes on benefits. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire may wish to intervene again to clarify the position.

Oliver Heald: indicated dissent.

James Purnell: I see that he does not want to.
	Will the Minister tell us how today's announcement affects the goal of reducing child poverty by 50 per cent. by 2010? Has he considered the good work done by Holly Sutherland of the National Council for One Parent Families? How far will the announcement take us towards our goal of creating a fairer society—which would be in stark contrast to the record of the Conservative Government?

Andrew Selous: It is sometimes futile to trade statistics across the Chamber, but I want to respond to comments made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). The figures for the number of working-age adults on less than 60 per cent. of the median household income have remained at about 6.6 million from 1994–95 to 2000–01, so there does not seem to have been much of a shift there.
	In this uprating order, we have seen an increase in incapacity benefit from £70.95 to £72.15. I do not think that the number of people on incapacity benefit in this country is generally known; neither is it known that the number is steadily increasing. In fact, 2.38 million people are on incapacity benefit. That is a rise of 1.7 per cent. over the past year. Of those, 1,070,000 have been on incapacity benefit for the past five years.
	The Select Committee has seen evidence that, in parts of the country with high unemployment, many general practitioners have perhaps been more willing to sign people on for incapacity benefit than has been case in other parts of the country. In their quest to get more people of working age into work, I suggest that the Government consider carefully the points of entry to entitlement for incapacity benefit.
	I want to suggest another change to the Secretary of State. Will he consider changing the name of the benefit? Why not "capacity benefit"? "Incapacity" is a negative word that stresses what people cannot do. Changing the name may have the effect of setting the benefit in the light that I know the Government would want.

Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that precisely that proposal is being consulted on in the Green Paper on pathways to work?

Andrew Selous: I hope that the proposal will receive a positive response. The present name is negative and unhelpful.
	Jobseeker's allowance has increased to £54.65 from £53.95. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that there has been a less than real-terms increase for those on JSA who are under the age of 24. The JSA increase will no doubt be appreciated by the 207 people in my constituency who are now unemployed but who were not unemployed this time last year. It is worrying that three quarters of that increase in unemployment has come in the last quarter or so.
	Disability living allowance has increased to £57.20—another small increase. I am worried by reports that I have had from a number of my constituents that disability living allowance and attendance allowance are being decided on without claimants having the opportunity to go before a doctor. In one very worrying case, the disability allowance of a constituent of mine was quite severely reduced on the authorisation of a GP who not only had not examined the claimant but had never even seen him. That decision has since been overturned. However, the case was worrying, and if increases are to mean anything in the uprating, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider it.
	Time is short and the Minister for Pensions is keen to start the wind-up speech. However, I want to question the Secretary of State's claim that the basic state pension will remain as the cornerstone of our pension's policy. If the minimum income guarantee continues to be uprated by earnings while the basic state pension is uprated only according to prices, over a long period the basic state pension will wither away as a fundamental component of people's retirement income.

Paul Flynn: I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this annual get-together of social security buffs. We are small in number and we talk a language that nobody on the outside seems to understand. Certainly, no journalists understand or appreciate it. After all, today's announcement affects only about 20 million people.
	I repeat what I said in an earlier intervention and congratulate the Government on their splendid record in this field—especially in the area of the state pension. I also point out the shameful record of the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) gave a striking example of that.
	A school in my constituency has the splendid motto "Nid da lle gellir gwell"—which means that there is no good that cannot be improved on. In a helpful and constructive way, I want to suggest to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Pensions that they can do even better.
	It would not be right to allow this debate to go by without some reference to the earnings link. We owe that to the traditions of the House. I believe that I am the only MP in the Chamber who has to declare a financial interest in the basic state pension, of which I am a grateful recipient and have been for the past three years. As we know, the increase this year is above the level of prices; prices went up by 1.7 per cent. and the pension will go up by 2.5 per cent. That is fine. It shows up the meanness of the previous Administration, who for 17 years increased it by a lower level, which meant that there were salami cuts throughout that period. It is right that we should proclaim the achievements of this Government.
	To take up a point that was made from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the relative value of the pension is important. Pensioners want an assurance that they will not lose out relative to the rest of society. All those who campaign for pensioners seek such an assurance but, sadly, no party in the country is offering it at the moment. In spite of the large increases, it was a mistake that we did not go for the attractive and understandable policy of restoring the earnings link. I was disappointed to receive an answer from the Minister for Pensions on 24 July 2002 which revealed that the pension was a smaller proportion of average earnings at that time than at the time of the Labour Government's first uprating in April 1998. Although we have achieved a great deal, the tendency is to head for further reductions, because of the success of the Labour Government's economy. This is a generous policy, but it will end in reductions.
	Can we afford it? The Government Actuary said last year that the surplus above the contingency fund in the national insurance fund was £18.4 billion, and we are told that that will rise to £20.2 billion in a year's time. This is the unneeded surplus, over and above all the money that is there to account for any unexpected increases in unemployment and so on. Then there is the £2 billion a year that is taken out of the national insurance fund to compensate employers for the green taxes. It might be quite reasonable to give them that compensation, but why on earth should it come out of the national insurance fund, which is made up of money paid in by working people to ensure that they have benefits in their retirement? I therefore make the plea—not exactly for the first time in this House—that we should consider restoring the earnings link.

Oliver Heald: I was surprised when the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said that he had been receiving his state retirement pension for three years. He obviously keeps very fit through his constant surveillance of the Government on pensions issues. He used to tax me about those matters, but I see that he is now taxing his hon. Friend the Minister.
	We have had an interesting debate that, although short, has concentrated on the key issue relating to the uprating statement: what it means for people in practice. We have had a lot of discussions about means-testing and take-up. It is easy for a Government to rely, as this Government so often do, on the effect of means-tested benefits to make them appear more generous than perhaps they really are. The gap between rich and poor has widened since 1997, and the amount that pensioners in the bottom fifth of the population are receiving has remained the same. The complacency that we heard in the Secretary of State's opening speech is misplaced.
	We also have to look back at what the Labour party used to say about this, and judge it against its words. The Chancellor wrote a document called, "Getting Welfare to Work" in 1996, in which he stated:
	"Means-tested benefits are claimed by over 3.5 million people over the state retirement age—a third of all pensioners. Six hundred thousand do not receive income support to which they are entitled . . . and are amongst the poorest people in Britain."
	Now, it is not one third but 60 per cent. who are on means-tested benefits. Now, it is not 600,000 not receiving income support but 770,000 pensioners not receiving the minimum income guarantee. Take-up has declined over the Labour years from 75 per cent. to 71 per cent. The Secretary of State admits that this downward slide is about to get worse, as his target for pension credit take-up is a miserable 67 per cent.

Andrew Smith: I made it very clear that that was not a target but a planning assumption. We want the highest possible take-up.

Oliver Heald: But that is what the right hon. Gentleman thinks will happen; 67 per cent. will mean 1.8 million people who cannot have the benefits about which he boasts. [Interruption.] He laughs, but the fact is that he brags about huge achievements on means-tested benefits while the poorest pensioners in the land do not receive the money. Even by 2006, his target is that 1 million people will still not be claiming the pension credit. Surely we can do better.
	The debate has concentrated on how we might do better. We have looked at the balance between means-testing and take-up. The proposal that was made against the pension credit option, to give older pensioners—the over-75s—the uprating to which they were entitled, struck me as a measure that would ensure almost 100 per cent. take-up.

Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: I have not got time. I have only seven minutes.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned the over-complication of the system. This is not a minor point. When considering the uprating of benefits, we have to be able to see what it means in all the nooks and crannies of the benefits system. Just a few years ago, the Department responsible for these matters was the social bank of the Government. It dispensed money to people in need. Now, these functions are spread all over the place. The Home Office deals with asylum support, but it has not even bothered to introduce measures to target fraud, which is bound to exist in any benefit system. The Treasury deals with tax credits, which has knock-on effects on the child support system. It is a mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned overpayments. One reason that people are overpaid is that they do not understand the system; it is too complicated.
	In my last minute, I should like to return to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—I am sorry, my hon. Friend; he will be right hon. soon. First, on the post office card account, why is it, after all the assurances from the Government that there would be equal treatment of banks and building societies—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that that matter is outside the scope of the debate.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that means that I have time to mention the other issues, which are clearly within the scope of the debate.
	Will the Pension Service be able to ensure, through local surgeries, that pensioners have the proper facilities that they need to find out about the benefits to which they are entitled under the uprating statement? We should like to hear more about that.
	On the child support system, the question of the C-day is obviously relevant because of the benefit sanctions that will have an impact on the uprating statement. We should like to hear from the Minister when C-day will be. Finally, can he tell us his philosophy in about a minute and a half?

Ian McCartney: Like the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am disappointed that we have not been able to have a fuller debate. I have had to junk all the things that I wanted to say about the hon. Gentleman and his party; I shall have to keep that powder dry. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) had a smell, but he was not going to miss out either. I shall try to answer as many questions as possible, but I give the commitment that I will send an answer to every question that I have been asked, place a copy in the Library and ensure that a copy of each answer goes to the Chair of the Select Committee, who, I know, likes to monitor what is happening in the Department. I hope that that helps hon. Members.
	On further debates, I welcome the opportunity from time to time to have debates in Westminster Hall. I have recently offered to take part in a debate on older people, along with other colleagues, on a cross-government basis. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give details soon. I would welcome a range of debates such as that. I am more than happy to debate these issues in whatever forum we can within the House, whether in Select Committee, Westminster Hall, here in formal debates or even in Adjournment debates.
	What has this debate been about today? Judging by what has been said by Opposition Members, they have not quite got it yet. It might be worth while, in the short time available, to put on record that the estimated cost of uprating for 2003–04 is £2.25 billion additional income. There will be £1.25 billion extra for pensioners, £200 million extra for people with disabilities and their carers, £400 million extra for working-age people and £400 million extra for children. One would not think that there could be fuller evidence of the Government's commitment to tackle and eradicate child poverty, to introduce measures to tackle poverty in old age, and to give opportunity through work and work incentives for people to get into the labour market and, with our support, to deliver themselves out of poverty.
	If the current Opposition had been on this side of the House today, the debate would have been reclassified as a debate on downrating. In all that he said, during the short time in which he said it, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) once again failed to reassure the House and the British people that he does not support the proposed £100 billion cut across the public services, much of which would affect our Department.
	The hon. Gentleman smiles, but his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has said that he has an opportunity to make cuts totalling 20 per cent. of public spending across the board of Government activity.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: Much as I love debating with the hon. Gentleman, I have little time left. I ask him simply to believe that that is what his hon. Friend said. I know it must be a shock to him that he must support such a ludicrous policy.

David Willetts: rose—

Ian McCartney: Here comes another one.

David Willetts: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: I will at some stage.

David Willetts: The Minister only has four minutes.

Ian McCartney: I know that. The hon. Gentleman had much more time than me. What I have said is true, however: I can quote from The Daily Telegraph, the house magazine of the Conservative party.
	We shall spend about £7.5 billion extra on pensions in 2003–04 as a result of measures that we have taken since 1997. Opposition Members say that this Government have not made a difference to the poorest pensioners, but that is entirely untrue. For example, under the last Tory uprating, an elderly gentleman aged between 60 and 74 would have received £68.80. This year, from 1 April, the same gentleman will receive £102.10, an extra £33 a week.
	As for the extension of means-testing, what does it really mean? It enables the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to disguise their policy of cutting the incomes of Britain's poorest pensioners. The Conservatives will make direct cuts because they simply do not like pension credit and want to get rid of it. The Liberal Democrats offer a choice. Those who are poor at 60 and want a Liberal Democrat Government should just hope they can reach 75, as they must face 15 years of penury before the Liberal Democrats will give them one extra penny.
	To be fair to the hon. Member for Northavon, he admitted that today, for the first time. But we have been telling him for more than a year that his policy is not about lifting pensioners out of poverty, but dividing poor pensioners into two camps. His party will say to poor people under 75, "Go away. Do not disturb us". They will tell those over 75, "Don't worry, we will look after you." I would not put the hon. Gentleman in charge of a piggy bank, let alone the national insurance contributions system. It is a scandalous proposal, and I can guarantee that we will not adopt it.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: I would like to, but I have only three minutes left. I gave the hon. Gentleman a guarantee at the outset that I would be more than happy to discuss the matter at any time and in any place. He has committed himself to allowing poor pensioners under 75 no proper access to additional income.
	Let us be quite clear about pension credit. The Tories and the Liberals continue to raise the issue of mass means-testing. They are trying to deter pensioners from claiming money that is rightfully theirs.
	What the Opposition spokesmen have omitted to mention in the political debate is that pension credit is now going live. What is the process about which they complain? It involves a simple telephone call on a free telephone line. Claimants are asked for information only for the purpose of working out the claim. They are sent a form to sign to confirm the information that they have given. The claim is then dealt with directly by the Pensions Service. If the claimants are entitled to extra income, it will come their way, and the vast majority will have nothing more to do for five years. How could that possibly be portrayed as the old-fashioned weekly means test?
	As a consequence of this change, the poorest pensioners will receive an average extra income of £400 a year—and at last the savings of those who are just above the minimum income guarantee level are being recognised. I ask hon. Members to support an order that will provide huge amounts of new income for many pensioners and others.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Pensions

Ian McCartney: I beg to move,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
	The order imposes no new costs on business, and in my view its provisions are compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights.
	This may well be a parliamentary first, in that orders such as this are usually included in the overall debate. I shall be honest with the House: I have just received a message from the Department relating to what I am to say. This is unusual in my case, but I shall stick to the brief that I have been given. I hope that hon. Members who have questions to ask will accept my assurance that I will write to them with technical answers.
	A guaranteed minimum pensions increase order is laid every year to prevent a person's contracted-out pension from losing its value because of inflation. The orders were introduced in 1978, at the same time as the state earnings-related pension scheme. Employers who ran good occupational pensions for their employees could contract out of SERPS, provided that they promised to pay their staff pensions that were no less than the guaranteed minimum pension. In return, both employer and employee made reduced national insurance contributions.
	The calculation of the GMP is laid down in legislation, and is roughly the same as the SERPS calculation. It is earnings-related, and based on a person's earnings over a maximum of 40 years. If those earnings were not increased in line with inflation, by the time the person retired his pension would be very low as inflation ate into the value of his past earnings. When a person retires, therefore, past earnings are increased to reflect the changes in their value. There is, however, a limit: the earnings are increased by the retail prices index capped at 3 per cent.

David Willetts: The Minister has explained that pensions contracted out as part of this formula involve a lower rebate. Will he explain why, in calculating that rebate, the Government Actuary assumes that the rate of return on indexed gilts will rise from 2 per cent. to 3.5 per cent., and will rise by 0.1 per cent. a year over the next 15 years?

Ian McCartney: That is why we employ the Government Actuary: to make such judgments. What a silly question. Why would we pay the Government Actuary not to give us advice?
	Let me be honest: one hopes that by the time the advice is given there has been a reshuffle. We should remember some of the things said from the Dispatch Box when the Conservatives were in power, for which they then blamed others. I take full responsibility for the information given by the Actuary, but I assume that he will have used his professional judgment.
	The earnings figure used to calculate SERPS is also increased, but in line with average earnings, and is not subject to a cap. When a person retires who has a contracted-out, salary-based pension, his GMP is compared with his notional SERPS entitlement. [Interruption.] I hope that everybody is following me. If SERPS is higher, the difference between the two amounts is paid with his retirement pension. Thus the state makes up the possible shortfall between the level of inflation and the capped amount that the employer is expected to pay. Although GMPs ceased to accrue from 1997, residual rates still exist, so increase orders are still required.
	This order is a routine measure to ensure that people's future pensions are not eroded by inflation. This protects the current system, but we are committed to ensuring that the legislation governing how pensions are run is proportionate to the required outcome, and to simplifying as far as possible the burdens placed on employers in this respect. In line with this intention, we announced in the recent Green Paper that we are working with the pensions industry to try to find a workable and affordable solution to the problems associated with the GMP's operation that have been brought to our attention.
	I am pleased to say that, as part of our commitment to working with those who will need to operate the system, Department officials are holding meetings with experts in the pensions industry, as well as with those representing scheme members. Only last week, the Department ran a workshop to which those interested in occupational pensions—including the Consumers Association, the national association of pension fund managers and the TUC—were invited. The discussions were particularly fruitful, and indicated some possible ways forward. In addition, we have issued a detailed technical paper on GMPs to widen the debate to include those who cannot attend such meetings. Indeed, I have offered to meet them at their convenience, and I make a similar offer to hon. Members if, after this debate, they feel in need of further information on what I have said.

David Willetts: I am grateful to the Minister for what was undoubtedly an entirely accurate, as well as a typically authoritative, account of this order. As the explanatory note points out, the order establishes the basis on which contracted-out occupational pensions have to offer the guaranteed minimum pension in order to be contracted out properly. As the explanatory note makes clear, the order covers contracted-out, defined benefit occupational pension schemes, so I hope that the Minister will be able to answer two questions.
	First, he will know that, despite his respect for the professional advice of the Government Actuary, which I share, just about everyone in the actuarial profession believes that the value of the contracted-out rebates—currently about £11 billion to British industry—is no longer actuarially fair. They believe that the cost of providing the guaranteed minimum pension, the uprating of which we are debating, is no longer properly covered by the value of the contracting-out rebate. The general view among actuaries is that the value should be about £12.5 billion—in other words, that the current value is £1.5 billion short. This is a very important point, because it is one reason for the pensions crisis. I know that there are many such reasons, and that not all of them are under the control of Ministers, but the reduction in the contracted-out rebate, compared with the cost of offering contracted-out pensions, is one of the main ones.
	I hope that the Minister will not shelter entirely behind the advice of the Government Actuary. Given that this issue is so important to our funded pensions, I hope that he will explain why the Government Actuary uses assumptions to calculate the value of the contracted-out rebate that are out of line with those used in the rest of the industry, and which are particularly out of line with those relating to returns on indexing gilts. That is not considered plausible, and I am afraid that the belief exists in the industry that that obscure assumption was one way in which the Government ensured that the cost of the contracting-out rebate was held down, and was therefore less than was actuarially fair.
	That leads to my second concern. We need to know how many pension schemes are still contracted out and therefore covered by the terms of this order, how many are contracted in, and—even more significantly—how many are contracting back in, having been contracted out. The question is whether contracted-out schemes will be re-entering the state system. At the moment, probably the only thing that is keeping them contracted out is the sheer administrative hassle of contracting back in. I fear that one reason why companies are closing their schemes to new members is that by doing so the new alternative defined contribution pensions that they offer instead are often contracted back into the state system. So one reason for the widespread closure of pension schemes for new members—a development that is causing much concern—is that it is used as a mechanism for contracting back in.
	The Government Actuary's report—one of the documents that is relevant to our debate—is very explicit. In paragraph 25, on page 10, the Government Actuary explicitly states that he does not know what is going on in respect of contracting out, partly because of the Government's problems with their NIRS2 computer system. He says:
	"The introduction of NIRS2 originally led to a lack of data showing numbers contracted out through different routes. I understand that data is now becoming available, but that it is currently being analysed and validated. Consequently there is, pending the completion of this validation exercise, still uncertainty about the numbers of people contracting-out."
	So my second query concerns when we will know more about contracting out and contracting back in. That is a fundamental feature of the current crisis in our funded pensions, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address that issue. I am sure that in doing so he would be entirely in order, because the order clearly relates to the regime for contracted-out occupational pension schemes.
	The order covers the incomes of millions of pensioners and I hope therefore that I may take this opportunity to confirm what my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in the Chamber earlier—that it is simply not the case that we are looking for a 20 per cent. reduction across the board in all public expenditure. Having taken that opportunity, I may also say that we will not, of course, oppose the motion, and certainly not in the light of the lucid explanation that we received from the Minister.

Steve Webb: I shall be similarly succinct. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) touched on the key issue. The Government Actuary's report on the order identifies £11 or £12 billion of public money that is spent on contracted-out rebates. However, when I tabled a written question to ask how many people were receiving those rebates, the Government could not tell me. It is breathtaking that £12 billion can be spent without anyone knowing who is receiving it, how many are receiving it and whether the amount is going up or down.
	I hope that the Minister will flesh out what the report says on page 10, as quoted by the hon. Member for Havant, and give us some idea of when we will receive the information that is "now becoming available". What worries me most about the lack of that information is that we are in a short consultation period on the Green Paper on pensions, on which the future of the scheme will be based. Without the information, it will be policy-making in a vacuum. That cannot be acceptable. We will support the motion, but I hope that the Minister will tell us when the information, which we need urgently, will become available.

Paul Flynn: I am always astonished by Conservative Front Benchers who present themselves as people with a record on pensions to be proud of. The appropriate response for the Opposition spokesman, especially as he played a major part in the Conservative Government, would be to repeat "mea culpa" for five minutes and then don sackcloth and heap ashes on his head, because their record is so abominable.
	I praise the record of the Government, which is remarkable. Since 1997, the Government have achieved the greatest shift in the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor since 1945. It is called stealth socialism, and we are almost ashamed of it in case the Daily Mail finds out and attacks us for it. Despite the Government's good record, I have several concerns.
	I wish to raise the possibility of restoring the Treasury supplement. That suggestion will cause panic among the civil servants, who will probably have to ring up somebody in retirement to find out what it was all about. The last successful Liberal politician, David Lloyd George, introduced it and—until it was abolished in the late 1980s—it was worth 18 per cent. in annual contribution from the taxpayer to the national insurance fund for pensions. That fine principle ensured redistribution.
	I welcome many of the Government's changes, especially the pension credit, which undoes the great injustice suffered by those who made contributions for many years from small disposable incomes but found on retirement that they received no value from the contributions whatever. That move is of great benefit, but it is sad to see that the number of pensioners depending on means-testing will increase.
	The prime factor in the fact that the very poorest pensioners do not claim income support is the stigma involved. Every hon. Member will know pensioners who take pride in the fact that they have never received a handout in their lives, or claimed benefit. They say that, in their retirement years, they will get what they paid in for but that they will not fill in a form that offers what they regard as a handout. That has been a problem for many years, and it remains one now.
	The house magazine for people of my generation is Saga Magazine. It was disappointing to read in an article by Paul Lewis that the Government assume that the take-up of pension credit will be only 67 per cent. That means that very many people will not get the benefit that they have missed before. We need to address that very important problem.
	I am very proud of the Government's record on pensions, but we should reconsider restoring the link to make sure that the minimum income guarantee is the basic pension. It is affordable, and would give much satisfaction to the million or so poorest pensioners who do not claim income support.

Oliver Heald: I was not going to respond to this short debate until I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). The means-testing to which he referred is important when it comes to uprating the guaranteed minimum pension, but the increases to that pension are under threat in a variety of ways.
	The first threat comes from the means test, which erodes pension levels. The second is that the overall picture of pension schemes reveals a huge decline in income levels. In the debate earlier this afternoon, I referred to the Government's miserable performance in taking pensioners out of poverty. For the bottom fifth of the pensioner population, the picture has been absolutely flat, but the gap between rich and poor has widened. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, West would not be pleased with that. One of the factors behind those figures is the fact that take-up is so poor.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment, as I have three or four other points to make.
	The introduction of the occupational pension scheme was probably the most important social welfare reform measure of the 20th century. The number of such schemes has fallen from 130,300 in 1998 to 103,000 now—down 30,000. The number of members of schemes that have started to wind up has risen from 10,000 to 40,000. The pension status of adult employees in 1994–95—I am sorry, I mean 1998—

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman wants to choose the worst possible figure for the Government.

Oliver Heald: No, I was being generous to the Government. The date I shall choose, 1994-95, is worse for me. In 1994–95, 64 per cent. of adult employees were in an occupational or personal pension. In 1998, the proportion was 60 per cent. That figure is now 56 per cent. now, which shows the collapse that is happening.

Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline in private sector occupational pension schemes—whether defined benefit or defined contribution schemes—risks a rather invidious comparison with what is available under publicly financed schemes, including those available to Members of Parliament and civil servants? Is there not a danger that there could be two nations in respect of pensions, as hon. Members have suggested is possible in other areas?

Oliver Heald: I understand entirely the concern felt by many that we are developing two nations in pensions. At the top of the pile among public sector pensioners is the Lord Chancellor, who gets an absolutely enormous public pension. At the other end of the scale, there has been a collapse in private sector pensions.
	However, I must not go down that road too much, as we are talking about the guaranteed minimum pensions. Many recently retired pensioners receive guaranteed minimum pensions, which are being uprated by this order. In 1997–98, the percentage of recently retired pensioners with an occupational pension was 67 per cent.; now it is 59 per cent.

David Winnick: If we look in the round at the way in which pensioners on limited incomes have to try to make ends meet, we can see how difficult that is. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman's Government refused any additional help during the winter months, whereas this Government introduced from the very beginning the winter fuel allowance, which is now £200 per pensioner household. Why did his Government not do anything of the kind? I know that he is not responsible—he is a more reasonable or moderate Tory.

Oliver Heald: In fact, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to an answer because I was the junior Minister for two years. I suggest that he puts the matter in its overall context. In the Conservative years, those who had an occupational pension or a personal pension saw marvellous results. The yields on investments in those pensions were about 10 per cent.; now they are running at less than 5 per cent. The stock market has collapsed and occupational schemes are closing hand over fist. In the past year alone, the rate of closure of schemes to new members has doubled. The National Association of Pension Funds says that a large number of schemes are moving towards wind-up. One has to ask why that has happened, and the reason is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Some latitude has been allowed, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the matter under discussion.

Oliver Heald: The Chancellor of the Exchequer put at risk the livelihoods and the financial position of those who receive guaranteed minimum pensions and this uprating because he whacked a £5 billion-a-year tax on pensions, the effect of which has been disastrous. We warned about it time and again, but what have we got out of it? Not very much.
	Finally, I want to ask the Minister about a technical aspect of guaranteed minimum pensions. Actuaries say that one of the greatest problems involved in winding up pension schemes and one of the reasons for the delays is having to sort out the equalisation of guaranteed minimum pensions as between men and women following the judgments of the 1990s. That is relevant in the context of uprating guaranteed minimum pensions. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister has any plans to sort that out and to provide the help for which those in the actuarial profession are asking.

Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on making the speech that he was unable to make in the previous debate.
	I shall not be enticed down the route on which the hon. Gentleman set out, other than to say, in relation to what he described as the golden years, that we have just cleared up the consequences of those golden years, which cost £13 billion in mis-sold pensions, which were sold mainly to individuals who already had a good pension but were persuaded by the Conservatives, by various means, to put it at risk.
	On the hon. Gentleman's final point, that is not a technical matter, but a very important issue that has exercised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me in relation to representations that I have received since becoming Minister for Pensions. To be frank, until I became Minister I had not realised some of the problems that were associated with this. I have met Conservative Members who have constituency problems in that regard—if the hon. Gentleman has any such, I shall be prepared to meet him. That is why we are hoping that proposals in the Green Paper will meet both the hon. Gentleman's objectives and our own, which, to be honest, are about the same.
	The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raised several issues. First, I shall take the opportunity to advise him about his local Pension Service. We are in the process of setting up three surgeries only for him in partnership with Age Concern, two of which are in Market parade and Malmesbury lawns. I can give him further details if he wishes. Doubtless even he will get some support from the Pension Service.

Tim Boswell: I want to make a constructive suggestion. While the Pension Service gets its act together, it might not be a bad idea if local management wrote to all Members of Parliament to inform them of surgeries' location.

Ian McCartney: That is a fair point. We are encouraging local managers, and I write to hon. Members as each centre is established. Informing hon. Members is not a problem but a priority. We are doing that as we develop the local Pension Service and put partnership arrangements in place. Further information will be sent to Members of Parliament as we roll out the service. Our job is to keep Members of Parliament and, I stress, their staff involved in our activities. Staff are in the front line and we want to ensure that every member of staff is fully apprised of the service that we are providing and that we forge continuing links.

David Willetts: From the addresses that the Minister mentioned, I suspect that one may be that of an Age Concern office and the other that of a social services nursing home. Will he clarify whether Pension Service staff—his officials—will give the authoritative advice?

Ian McCartney: Indeed. Highly trained, highly committed local Pension Service staff, whose raison d'être is to be advocates for the older person and work with groups, will give advice. We are rolling out centres throughout the country; I believe that 700 are already in place. We are developing and building on that.
	We are also willing to consider ideas. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) asked whether we could arrange for Pension Service staff to hold advice centres with her. We will partner any individual, organisation or community group. That includes Members' staff who want assistance and advice on pension matters. It is part of the ethos of the Pension Service, especially the local service, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to it. We shall do anything that we can to assist hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire tried to entice me again. Conservative Members always try to entice me. I do not know why, but they try to tickle my fancy—politically speaking, of course. He tried to persuade me to give a different view from that of the Government Actuary on the contract rebates. I am not an actuary and we employ Government Actuaries to give us appropriate advice. They do not do that in isolation. The proposed rebates were sent out for consultation and the Government Actuary's Department produced a document. The Actuary presented recommendations after that consultation.
	Recent changes in economic conditions have not altered the Actuary's long-term assumption on which the rebates are based. It is reasonable and fair for actuaries to make long-term assumptions. Changes in cycles will occur from time to time, but the system is well proven and the advice that we receive non-partisan. I assure hon. Members that Ministers have not interfered politically in the past, are not doing so now and will not do so. The decisions are non-partisan; they must be taken independently and based on best practice.
	The changes in the order involve £11 billion over five years—2002–03 to 2006–07.

Oliver Heald: There is widespread anxiety in the actuarial profession about the matter. What was the balance of opinion in the consultation? Does somebody support the Government Actuary's opinion?

Ian McCartney: The whole purpose of consulting is to consult other actuaries. One could take a range of issues and receive different actuarial views. It was obviously the balance that the Actuary came to. He will not give advice to the Government that is so much out of touch with the long-term view that he and others in the profession have expressed. From time to time there will be different views. Actuaries' opinions are sought. The thing about the Government Actuary is that, unlike other actuaries who give advice to clients, who can take it or leave it, he consults over the proposed advice that he may wish to give. That is a democratic, accountable process.There is nothing to add to what I have told the hon. Gentleman. He is looking for a fox. It is not there.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked a range of questions about the lack of numbers on contracting out. I hope that I can give him the right information. If not, I apologise in advance. I am told that the data for the financial years up to 2000–01 will be available by the early summer this year, with an update in the autumn relating to 2000–02. [Interruption.] Remarks are being made from a sedentary position. I am being open, frank and honest. The hon. Gentleman asked me a technical question and I gave him the answer. If there is any change, I shall notify him and other hon. Members as soon as I can. I want to make sure that the information available in this context is put in the public domain.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Minister. That is the information that I was asking for, but now that I have heard the answer I am even more worried. Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that he will be trying to shape pension policy in this critical consultative stage without knowing how many people are contracting out, whether the number is going up or down and how people are responding behaviourly? The last information the hon. Gentleman gave me in a written answer was for 1995–96. How can he make policy in that void?

Ian McCartney: It is fine to try to make a crisis that does not exist. We have had to reconstruct the NIRS programmes. Therefore, the whole structure and basis of how information is collated has changed. To suggest that this is the only information that we require to determine our pension policy—in relation to the public sector, the state pension provision or private pension provision, second-tier provision—is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman, who is an academic, knows that what he is saying is nonsense.
	We are attempting to give the information and put it in the public domain. I apologise if the hon. Gentleman thought that it should have been made available sooner. There are genuine technical reasons why that was not done. It has fallen to my watch to sort it. I am trying to sort it, so that we all have more up-to-date, more accurate information. I am sure that the hon. Member for Havant will take that comment about more accurate information to his heart and challenge me about it some time in the future.
	I will take the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) as a pre-Budget submission to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and make sure that they are passed to my right hon. Friend.

David Willetts: I am grateful to the Minister, who is trying to respond to the various points that have been raised about pensioners and the effect of the order on them. I return to the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman's PPS, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), to me in the radio interview to which I referred earlier. Can he repeat the guarantee that there will be a face-to-face meeting with officials from the Pension Service, if that is what pensioners want?

Ian McCartney: I have given a written assurance to the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has not read it, I shall send him a copy. Any pensioner who requires a home visit will receive one. We are doubling the staff in the local service. The whole point of the local service is to have an interface to make sure that pensioners have direct access to the services that we want to provide.
	I know that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) is working with the hon. Gentleman to privatise the state pension. While he is getting on with that dastardly deed we are getting on with a face-to-face relationship with Britain's pensioners.
	Question put and agreed to.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am aware that you and Mr. Speaker are not responsible for the management of business, but I want to bring to your attention the fact that yesterday a large number of Members wanted to speak in the debate. I was one of those who were unfortunate. I have tried on other occasions to speak in debates on Iraq and other Members, too, were not called yesterday who might have wanted to speak previously. Today, business has collapsed at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I realise that we cannot always anticipate what is going to happen, but it seems odd that arrangements cannot be made. Yesterday many Members, including me, could not speak in the debate despite all our efforts, while today we are finishing at 4 pm instead of 6 pm. I am sure that I am not alone in my concern. Is it possible to communicate the concern of some Members about this matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: To some extent, the hon. Gentleman has answered his point of order: it is indeed not a matter for the Chair but for the usual channels. I have no doubt that they will have taken note of his comments.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Fireworks

Ian Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of myself and my hon. and good Friends, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). We support a partnership between local authorities, the police service, primary care trusts, the fire service, the Salford Advertiser, the Prestwich Advertiser and, of course, the public in our constituencies in presenting this petition relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
	We have received an increasing number of letters from our constituents expressing their growing concern about fireworks. None of us who are in our mature years can remember from our youth anything like the type of fireworks that we see nowadays. They are vastly different. On behalf of the public, the partnership calls for better restrictions on the type and use of fireworks. It is concerned about the licensing and registration of the sale of fireworks to the public and wants better regulation of the importation and distribution of fireworks.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Salford Advertiser and Prestwich Advertiser, signed by more than 6,000 readers and other supporters, declares that there should be new regulations restricting the type and use of fireworks available and licensing restrictions for those who sell fireworks in order to cut down on distress caused to families, the elderly and their pets by irresponsible firework use.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduce new regulations to restrict the type and use of fireworks available and to institute a new licensing regime for those who sell and/or organise public displays.
	To lie upon the Table.

Jim Dobbin: My petition is on the same subject, so I shall not reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart). I have previously handed in 60,000 signatures to No. 10 Downing street. The petitions are timely as tomorrow there will be a Second Reading debate on a private Member's Bill on fireworks.
	I take this opportunity to thank the Manchester Evening News, the Middleton Guardian, the Heywood Advertiser and the Rochdale Observer for their help and support.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of over 2,500 residents of Heywood and Middleton, and surrounding areas of Manchester,
	Declares that the disruption and distress caused by extensive use of fireworks throughout the year to local communities and animals is wholly unacceptable; that the Private Member's Bill to be introduced by the Honourable Member for Hamilton South is worthy of support.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take such measures as lie within its power to restrict the use of fireworks and to legislate for their regulation.
	To lie upon the Table.

BODY PIERCING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Meg Munn: Daniel Hindle was a healthy, active teenager with a passion for music. He attended Sheffield college, studying media, English and information technology. He was a skilful guitarist and, by last summer, he had formed his own band, which had already started playing gigs and was in demand for further performances.
	Daniel had a girlfriend and, last October, they decided that they would get a piercing together. They went to a popular studio in Sheffield, where his girlfriend had her eyebrow pierced and Dan had his lip pierced. That turned out to be the catalyst for the nightmare that was to ensue. A few days after the piercing, he became ill and slowly got worse. He was admitted to hospital and subsequently into the coronary care unit. He was infected by septicaemia, or blood poisoning, which attacked his major organs and left him too weak to fight the infection. A few days before Christmas, on 21 December, Daniel lost his fight for life. He was 17 years old.
	Daniel and his girlfriend did what many teenagers do; they decided to get a piercing—the sort of thing that ordinary teenagers do. Tragically, Daniel was not an ordinary teenager. He had been born with a heart defect called tricuspid atresia—a condition that had necessitated two life-saving operations when he was younger. Both operations were 100 per cent. successful, and Daniel had grown up normally with an excellent quality of life.
	Daniel was not aware that for him, piercing could pose a serious health risk. His mother, Christina Anderson, believes that if he had been aware of the risk, he probably would not have had it done. Unfortunately, nobody drew that possibility to his attention before or during his visit to the piercing studio.
	There is no suggestion that the studio did anything wrong. It was not ignoring Government regulations. Astonishingly, there are no regulations for body piercers in Sheffield. Local authorities in London have powers to control ear piercing and cosmetic body piercing businesses by licensing, using provisions in the London Local Authorities Act 1991, or by registration and byelaws, using provisions in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981. The majority of London local authorities have adopted licensing powers. Local authorities outside London have powers to register and make byelaws for ear piercing businesses under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, but not for cosmetic body piercing businesses.
	Sheffield city council's website contains information about body piercing, stating that it does not require registration. It provides information, however, on how to register on a voluntary basis with the health protection service, which offers that service. Those who register with the authority receive a premises inspection to ensure that appropriate standards are being achieved and a certificate stating that the premises and practices are suitable and sufficient.
	Sheffield's voluntary code of practice aims to
	"offer guidance to body piercers regarding the practice of body piercing and outlines specific recommended hygienic procedures."
	That includes that body piercing shall not be undertaken on any person under the age of 16 unless parental consent is given, and an expectation that proof of age will be requested. It advises that the client's medical history should be discussed and draws attention to particular conditions that should lead a client to consult a general practitioner before proceeding. Those include heart disease, major infections, allergies and skin complaints. That is good advice, but registration is voluntary. No statutory requirement exists to find out how old someone is before piercing them, and no law exists stopping a child under 16 from being pierced. No compulsion exists to find out whether a customer, such as Daniel, has a heart defect.
	The Government have stated on a number of occasions that they believe that primary legislation should be introduced to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate the hygiene and cleanliness of cosmetic body piercing businesses when parliamentary time allows. I am aware that that issue was raised recently in the Local Government Bill Committee. I have also spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions urging him to seek to amend the Bill if at all possible to introduce this provision. Parliament needs to act now. Daniel's death is already one death too many.
	Today, I am not just asking for legislation to be changed. I want to raise awareness of the health risks of body piercing and I want the Department of Health to consider what it can do to raise awareness. I understand from previous parliamentary answers that the Department does not have information on the number of people who seek medical help as a result of body piercing. In answer to my written parliamentary question in January, the Minister stated that the Department was not aware of any research into the risks of body piercing for individuals with congenital heart disease, although there have been a small number of published case reports from abroad of endocarditis in individuals with congenital heart disease following skin piercing.
	That is not the only area of medical risk, however. A search of the internet has revealed the following information. Dr. Junaid Hanif of Heath hospital in Cardiff carried out a study of body piercing last year. He discovered that
	"more than 95% of GPs in Greater Manchester have treated complications caused by body piercing in the past year and incidences in England and Wales of damage to ear cartilage caused by piercing have doubled in the last decade with more than 2,000 cases reported in 2001."
	Writing in the August 2002 issue of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, Drs. Akhondi and Rahimi of the Mercer university school of medicine in Georgia reported the case of one 25-year-old man who became seriously ill soon after having his tongue pierced. The man had a heart defect, and blood tests revealed that his heart was infected with a type of mouth bacteria, and the stud of the piercing also tested positive for the presence of the same bacteria. Thankfully, that young man survived after a period in hospital.
	Almost as common and potentially far more serious than jewellery allergies are infections, which result in redness, swelling, tenderness, pain and, often, swelling of nearby glands. When sterile techniques are not used, bacteria and viruses can be introduced into the bloodstream, including the hepatitis B virus that can cause chronic hepatitis and liver cancer, and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In people born with heart valve disorders, bacterial endocarditis, a potentially deadly infection of the heart, can result if they fail to take preventive antibiotics. Piercing the nose can result in a staphylococcal infection and piercing the cartilaginous part of the ear, which has a very poor blood supply, can result in an infection necessitating surgery and can result in permanent deformity. Even tetanus is a risk in people who have not been immunised in the past 10 years.
	In an article in the Student British Medical Journal last year, Jamie Wilson of Leeds said:
	"The largest ever 'body art' study has found that a fifth of students with body piercings have excessive bleeding, bacterial infection, and tissue trauma. The research was reported in Mayo Clinic Proceedings . . . after 454 undergraduates from a New York college completed questionnaires on the subject."
	More than half the students had piercings outside the traditional domain of the earlobe, and 29 per cent. of women had a navel ring or belly bar. Complications were most likely for nipple, navel and genital piercings, and bleeding and bacterial infection were the most common ailments. Piercings were most frequently permanently removed from the nose, tongue, eyebrow and male nipple. In September 2000, a woman with 118 piercings, including six lip rings and 11 belly bars, died from bacterial septicaemia. She refused to seek medical attention, believing she could offset any infections with saline swabs.
	The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health contacted me stating that it, too, is calling for stricter licensing controls on body piercers in response to concern about health risks. It has issued a set of recommendations for consumers designed to inform and educate the public about the possible health implications of skin piercing treatments ranging from body art and tattooing to electrolysis and acupuncture. The institute echoes my concerns that there is no control over who can set up in business as a body piercer, and there are certainly no recognised standards for new practitioners. It also calls for any piercing below the neck to be made illegal for under 16-year-olds.
	Body piercing has become much more fashionable in the past few years, with many teenagers thinking nothing of going out and getting a piercing done. Daniel Hindle did that and a life was cut short. Given the concerns and the possible medical risks that are already known, will the Minister's Department consider commissioning further research on the risks of body piercing, especially if there is an underlying heart condition? The Department of Health is aware that a small study in the United States stated that physicians should advise patients with heart conditions against piercing, but that if the person decided to go ahead, antibiotics should be taken, which is usually the case for dental or surgical procedures. Further research is needed to understand the risks and to ensure that proper advice is given.
	Daniel's death has devastated his mother, his family, his friends and the whole college community at Norton in Sheffield. A website has been set up to raise awareness and to commemorate his life at www.danaid.com. I am not against body piercing; I am against ignorance about the effects that such piercings can have. No other young person should lose his life in that way. In spite of her grief, Christina Anderson, Daniel's mother, has dedicated herself to preventing that from happening. Now it is the turn of the Government to act.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on her success in obtaining this important debate. I know that she has taken an increasing interest in the regulation of cosmetic body piercing in recent months. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the issue. I also hope to respond to the specific queries raised.
	As body piercing becomes more common, especially among young people, the problems associated with it become more important, too. I am aware of the tragic case of Daniel Hindle. I should like immediately to put on record my sympathy for his family, friends and community. I have looked at the website and am aware of the tremendous campaigning work that Daniel's mother has undertaken. Sheffield city council is carrying out a detailed and thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding Daniel's death. As the investigation is not yet complete, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. However, it will be important to consider whether there are any general lessons to be learned once the investigation is completed.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that the health risks of body piercing and the measures in place to control them are crucial. People considering body piercing should be aware of the risks and should be confident that appropriate controls are in place. Where existing health conditions may be relevant to body piercing, that should be clear to all concerned. That applies not just to heart defects but to other pre-existing conditions. I am aware that there is great concern about the piercing of children. Body piercing has become more fashionable in recent years, and the trend has been stimulated by celebrities who have had their bodies pierced. It can be extremely worrying for parents when their children have ear or body piercing done against their wishes.
	I should like to address my hon. Friend's concerns by considering the possible health risks and the measures in place to control the situation. If cosmetic body piercing is carried out in an unhygienic manner or incorrectly, it may cause a variety of problems such as local, usually trivial, wound infections, as well as transmission of serious blood-borne viral infections such as hepatitis B. Most complications are local, minor wound infections that do not appear to be caused by the piercing itself. Typically, they may be caused by exposure to bacteria, for example, by touching the piercing in the days following the piercing with unwashed hands or by the wound coming into contact with hair, bedding, clothing and so on.
	As my hon. Friend said, I stated in a recent parliamentary answer that there has been a small study in the United States that investigated ear piercing and tattooing in patients with congenital heart disease. In that study, no patients experienced serious infections following ear piercing and tattooing, although a quarter of them experienced minor local skin infections following ear piercing. As my hon. Friend said, there have been a small number of case reports abroad of endocarditis—infection of the heart valves and perhaps the heart lining—in people with congenital heart disease following skin piercing. My hon. Friend asked whether the Department of Health can carry out more investigation into the extent of difficulties that arise as a result of skin piercing. I am pleased to tell her that we are considering the feasibility of a special study in that area. I have asked my officials to look into that, because it is important that we have an evidence base on the extent of those problems. My hon. Friend's information about the GP survey is tremendously interesting, as it reveals the extent of problems in the Greater Manchester area.
	Non-infectious complications can result directly from body piercing, and include swelling around the piercing and allergic reactions to jewellery, metal and antiseptics. Serious complications, as far as we know, are uncommon, according to case reports in the published literature and surveillance by the Public Health Laboratory Service. None the less, it is vital that we have the right measures in place to ensure public protection. A pressing question for us is how to regulate body piercing businesses in the face of those possible risks. We have a legislative framework in place that facilitates the promotion of safe and hygienic practice to try to minimise those health risks. We intend to strengthen that framework, as I shall explain. Local authorities have powers under specific and general legislation to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. In London, local authorities may regulate those businesses by licensing and inspection, or by registration, byelaws and inspection, depending under which legislation they have chosen to proceed. The vast majority of London local authorities have adopted licensing powers, and can set the conditions under which a licence is granted. Licence conditions may cover matters such as cleanliness, hygiene of the premises, and equipment and its safety. Local authorities can refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, or they can revoke a licence if they are not satisfied that the business will provide a safe and hygienic service.
	My hon. Friend is right that local authorities outside London do not have specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. When the legislation governing skin piercing businesses outside London was introduced in 1982, I think in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, cosmetic body piercing was not widely known about or practised to the extent that it is these days. My hon. Friend will recognise that many—probably most—cosmetic body piercing businesses also carry out tattooing or ear piercing. Such businesses often operate side by side in the same premises.
	Local authorities outside London have powers to regulate by registration and byelaws both ear piercing and tattooing. Local authorities therefore have the opportunity to work with businesses that offer cosmetic body piercing together with tattooing or ear piercing to provide safe and hygienic practices. That will be to the benefit of all their customers, whether they come for tattooing, ear piercing or cosmetic body piercing.
	In addition, local authorities can use general enforcement powers under health and safety at work legislation. That allows them to use improvement and prohibition notices and ultimately to prosecute cosmetic body piercing businesses if they judge that there is a risk to customers' health and safety. Sometimes the health and safety powers are under-utilised, perhaps because local authorities do not see them as local government powers, but they exist and they are extremely strong powers in terms of improvement and prohibition notices. Local authorities can use those powers if they are appropriate.
	There was a consultation exercise on these matters in 1996. Following that consultation, we concluded that there should be primary legislation to give local authorities outside London the specific powers that they lack to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. As my hon. Friend said, we have been trying to find parliamentary time to ensure that that happens. We know that there is substantial support from local authorities and from businesses for such legislation. The good businesses in operation want to ensure that they are providing excellent and safe practices. There has been heavy pressure on parliamentary time. I cannot be precise about when it might be possible to introduce legislation, but we shall take every opportunity that we can.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Local Government Bill. If possible, we want to pursue that, but I cannot give a commitment at this stage. That does not mean that cosmetic body piercing businesses outside London are entirely regulated. There are powers in place for local authorities to inspect, advise and, if necessary, enforce the legislation. The framework enables local authorities to play a role in driving up standards and promoting good practice. It is important that we build constructive partnerships with the businesses and get the proper advice out to the public.
	My hon. Friend referred to the voluntary registration scheme and code of good practice introduced by Sheffield city council for body piercing businesses. We are also aware that some local authorities have produced information for the public on the risks of body piercing and how to choose a reputable body piercer. In Bury and Rochdale councils area and in Southampton such guidelines and information for the public have been introduced. The Department of Health has used the Bury and Rochdale body piercing leaflet as an example of good practice in our recently issued strategy on hepatitis C. It is important that we encourage local authorities to issue such information.
	Action is being taken by industry bodies such as the Association of Professional Piercers and the European Professional Piercers Association, which have also produced good practice guidelines. Those need to be distributed widely. There has also been guidance from the Health and Safety Executive, which in October 2001 produced updated guidelines. Those guidelines should assist local authorities in advising businesses on issues such as hygiene practice, treatment of customers with existing health conditions, after-care, and adopting a reasonable approach to age of consent issues.
	All these measures and activities should help in promoting safe practice. That must include prospective customers being made aware of the potential health risks of body piercing, the relevance of existing health conditions, the need for medical advice, and the proper after-care of the piercing to reduce the risk of infection. Those are all aspects that my hon. Friend highlighted in her contribution.
	On the age of consent, I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about young children having body piercing done without parental consent, in terms of whether that is appropriate and also because of the possible health risks. Overall, Government policy on the age of consent is the responsibility of the Home Office. However, let me explain the position on skin piercing.
	Only the tattooing of minors is controlled by specific legislation—the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969. The question of what is a valid consent for cosmetic body piercing is governed by common law. If a person under the age of 18 is capable of understanding the nature of the act that is to be done, he or she is capable of giving a valid consent to it unless statute provides otherwise. The degree of competence that can be exercised by children will depend in each case on the relative maturity of the child concerned, as well as upon his or her age. I understand that parents are concerned when their children have had body piercing done without their consent. However, I am advised by local authorities and the industry that body piercing should not be carried out on children without parental consent. Obviously, practice in individual businesses may vary.
	Our concern is that, if we introduced a minimum age of consent, we could end up increasing the health risks of body piercing. Children might try to pierce themselves or each other in an unsafe or unhygienic manner or they would go to disreputable piercers rather than to those who abide by a code of practice and guidelines. It is a difficult issue on which to make the right judgment, but I am sure that we are all aware that, when an activity is subject to prohibition, the prospects of it taking place with greater risk always remain on the horizon. We are keeping the age of consent under constant review and will continue to consider whether it may be appropriate to introduce a minimum age of consent for this practice. Most reputable businesses would like guidelines that make it clear that people under the age of 16 should not be pierced.
	In conclusion, our primary concern is that cosmetic body piercing is provided in a safe and hygienic manner. I have outlined the legislative framework that is in place and said that we plan, wherever possible, to strengthen that framework. We want to encourage local authorities outside London to use their existing powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and under the provisions to regulate ear piercing and tattooing.
	We will keep the position under review in the light of any new evidence that emerges, and we will consider the need for further action once the investigation into the tragic case of Daniel Hindle has been completed. I am keen that we learn the lessons of that case. I am pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that we will consider the feasibility of carrying out a special study to make sure that we increase our evidence base on this issue. That will become increasingly important in the future as cosmetic body piercing becomes more popular, particularly among young people. It is important that Government keep up to date with developments.
	I thank my hon. Friend for raising a matter that is important not just to her constituency but to the country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Five o'clock.